He had rather secretly always been a devout Protestant Christian and he too had some doubts about the causal adequacy and sufficiency of neo-Darwinism.
Even as a paleontologist I admit that calling this a real scientific discipline seems like an insult to sciences like physics or chemistry or molecular biology.
Of course, it is only we “nitpicking” intelligent design proponents who point out such incongruences.
Nature appears to be deceptive. Are Darwinists bothered by such problems? Not at all.
What ID proponents are encouraging in the greater scientific community is honesty about the fact that both design and ancestry can create genetic similarity.