The Claremont Review article is so influenced by proponents of intelligent design that your claim (it is thoughtful and non-religious) is dubious. If the rebuttal seems dismissive it is probably because biologists are tired of the straw man attacks on Darwin and the false claims associated with intelligent design.
Most intelligent design arguments are:
1) Evolution through Natural Selection cannot explain this (insert something which most likely is explained)
2)Ergo Intelligent Design
It is altogether tiresome to defend Darwin and the legacy of his theory. Of course he could not explain everything. Mendel’s genetics would not be well known for at least 40 years after the publication of “The origin of Species” and molecular biology had its infancy 100 years later.
New knowledge has caused us to understand that evolution is more complex than Darwin expressed to us, but he knew that there was a wealth of information the world lacked in his time. Sadly he received a letter from Mendel which he seems to have ignored much as Einstein brushed off Georges Lemaitre about an expanding universe. Nonetheless the basic principles of his work are solid, well supported. and universally accepted. (Those who reject them are invariably influenced by religious bias, either first or second order influence)
I suppose as long as there is a perceived threat to religion from “Evolution through Natural Selection” then tiresome claims that “Darwin is Dead)” will always be with us. That is the lot in life of biologists. Like Rodney Dangerfield they get no respect.