Not to judge the whole article but on paragraph like three it goes off about how this compares/contrasts to evolution which is a nonsense question and I am shocked that a credible science journal? site? would even go down that road.
In explaining abstract concepts it's helpful to clarify what something is not as well as find analogs to what it is.
"Quanta is an editorially independent online publication launched by the Simons Foundation to enhance public understanding of science."
The key phrase here is "enhance public understanding." It's natural that the public, upon encountering a theory of the origins of life, will think about Darwin. The article anticipates this line of thought and addresses it.
I see nothing egregiously wrong here. Shouldn't we support publications for attempting to bring thoughtful, well-meaning, reasonably well researched science journalism to the lay public? This article does some spoon-feeding, but spoon-feeding is better than junk-feeding, and it's certainly better than no feeding at all.
It seems like lately science is getting more and more defensive to protect itself against religious forces. While understandable, such a change is not good for the progress of science. Science is a free-thinker's religion. Let's keep it that way. Nothing at all is above getting challenged or questioned. Neither god, nor evolution.