So I see your point. It is not immediately clear what is wrong with that qualification. (@sygarte are you looking at this?). Aside for the context of being on the ENV website (which is blatantly anti-evolution), there are some things here that really are frustrating for scientists, and reminds me quite about of issues I have with The "Third Way"/EES and Population Genetics - #13 by sygarte.
Incidentally, that connection is not spurious. Sternberg and Shapiro (of EES) co-authored several articles. EES has the same pattern…
That is all good and fine that he is not suggesting extraterrestrials or God’s action. It is however, bizarre the he has no idea what is causing this pattern. We have very good reason to think that it this pattern is caused by a specific process. Just a quick literature search in 2010 would have identified potential causes of the pattern. More focused work would have confirmed one of those causes (and that is what we see in the literature now). This is not nearly the mystery he makes it out to be.
This is where things go south. He is criticizing the “popular works” of theistic evolutionists for not including a minor detail (that the vast majority of the public would not care about) from their published scientific work. That is just a unfair critique. Of course popular works do not include all the details. Frankly, most journal papers don’t include all the details. It only matters if a material fact committed in a way that is misleading.
Such omissions do happen, but that is not at all ways happening here.
This is an absurd claim. No scientists has claimed we would find “nothing but disorder” along the chromosomes. That is just a strawman. Moreover, this “high degree of order” is not quantified and is purely subjective, with a veneer of plausibility. This supplementary figure from Collin’s paper does not demonstrate anything like a “high degree of order.”
The whole “qualification” is implying Francis Collins of not giving a fair explanation of the science, and intentionally omitting material facts about the genome. Collins might be wrong on some things, but he was not dishonest. I do understand that Sternberg did not directly state this, but that is what the language he is doing seems to be indirectly saying. It is the same reason that EES angers a lot of scientists. They often talk about how others aren’t giving the whole story, and such.
Most scientists are not intentionally dishonest or misleading, and they take it as a personal attack on their professional integrity. As far as this specific case is concerned, he has not even demonstrated that which he is implying.