> purports to show that reproduction cannot be explained by natural selection and is irreducibly teleological

Anyone who's looked into creationist arguments, or argued with creationists, will immediately be put on guard by this sentence fragment.

First, reproduction is necessary for natural selection to take place. It's a precondition, not something to be explained.

Second, "irreducible" is one of those words that is somehow never given a definition that an observer can use to decide that a process or feature is "irreducibly complex", or "irreducibly" anything, really. When you peel off the layers, you end up having to rely on some authority to say, "Feature X is irreducibly complex".

Third, "teleological". A philosophical or theological term that invariably gets misused in discussions of biology as a kind of disguised circular argument.

I'm not saying that this paper is garbage disguised by a big vocabulary, but I would certainly be alert for rhetorical sleight of hand sneaking in creationism of one kind or another.