The paper could cause a stir, since it has violated an “implicit agreement” that mainstream academics should never criticize public advocates of evolution.
Whether the subject is evolution or climate change, the purpose of accusing someone of “science-denial” is to keep that person in line.
Unfortunately, the pictures we have of the Seminar need to be severely cropped, so as to protect the students’ identities.
Newton was arguing from science, not religion. But that doesn’t fit the Epicurean mythos that religion opposes naturalism while science confirms it.
The problem is, none of these people cite papers or other writing by researchers on intelligent design, like the work done by Douglas Axe on protein evolution probabilities.