Well then why don't you click on the reference link I provided and read the abstract of the paper? Or indeed read the whole paper since that is linked to from the abstract and is now freely available.
I'm still not sure what point you think you are making. If their point wasn't to provide any support for an ID hypothesis, either directly or by casting doubt on the efficacy of traditional evolutionary theories then it should be an even clearer indication of the paucity of ID research.
When the most prominent IDist researchers, i.e. Michael Behe and Doug Axe, aren't producing anything which touches on ID except in the most indirect manner by casting doubt on the feasibility of 'neo-darwinian' mechanisms, one has to wonder whether any science of ID actually exists.
The Biologic Institute, which Axe heads, was set up 2 years ago now to perform ID research
in secret, we have yet to see any super secret results. I don't complain about that, my own publishing record is pretty meager, but I am but one man not a research institute. Indeed Axe has been funded by the Discovery institute to do research on design related issues for the past 8 years and none of his published works seem to offer any support to ID, for all they have been held up as peer reviewed ID research.
TTFN,
WK