I am all for models since I have made extensive use of QM molecular modelling in my work for many years. However, it is necessary to point out that mathematical formulations and the rigorous scrutiny needed of these is critical to the utility of any scientific modelling. In this context, natural selection (NS) takes the form of a foundation for all biologically relevant models that are considered to be based on neo-Darwinian (ND) thinking. I think the lack of any rigorous mathematical foundations for NS is more then a gap, or something that is a work in progress, but more of a fundamental flaw in ND.
To use the somewhat extreme views by some proponents of ND, who claim a similarity with QM, this is equivalent to saying we do not have the wave equation, but nonetheless QM is shown to be true by some simple models. If viewed in this (perhaps humorous) way, we would have serious doubts of ND. My personal view is that ND is a primitive, semantic notion that needs to be freed from ideological (and odd theologies) baggage, and eventually be replaced, as an inadequate outlook, by a mathematically based theory or theories of the biological disciplines. I quickly admit that such a breakthrough would take enormous effort, because the biological sciences eventually take us to perhaps some of the most difficult areas of all science. But when we mix up ND and Christian theology, these concerns on ND become valid (I assume ID stays clear of theological teachings, or at least Eddie seems to argue in this way)…
Extending our arguments to the origins of life takes us to extreme speculation, and as the reference you provide states, a lot of wishful thinking. I guess my comments would not please proponents of ND or ID .