In arguing that evolution and design are compatible, Kojonen is essentially advocating a form of theistic evolution. His theory is succinctly explained in the Religions article thus: "...God created the laws of nature, which ultimately lead to fine-tuned 'preconditions' ...that enable evolution to occur." Another way of expressing Kojonen's theory is that design is compatible with evolution if we define "design" as meaning God established the laws of nature. Then evolution took over, bringing the various forms of life into being through the interaction of chance and natural selection, while being constrained by the laws of nature. This is sometimes described as "frontloading." It should be pointed out that Kojonen's definition of "design" differs that of ID theorists, who hold that biological organisms contain structures that bear the mark of having been directly designed by an intelligent designer.
While listening to the discussion of Kojonen's theory on the podcasts, I could not help feeling that his theory is, to some extent at least, a modern re-working of an older point of view about God's relationship with nature. This view is known as deism, which was a philosophical/religious perspective especially popular in the 18th century. Thomas Jefferson would arguably be a good example of a deist. The deists famously believed in a "clockmaker God"--that is, a God who created the universe and established the laws that govern that universe, just like a clockmaker builds a clock and then sets it going. However, according to the deists, once God created the universe and established the laws regulating it, He never interfered with the workings of nature. To me, it seems that Kojonen has simply taken the deist view of the relationship between God and nature and incorporated Darwinian evolution into it. Of course, the deists of the 18th century would not have thought of doing this since Darwin's theory of evolution did not emerge until the following century. Nevertheless, Kojonen's theory does seem quite compatible with deism--but arguably less so with Christian theism, which assumes a greater degree of involvement by God in nature (although Kojonen might disagree).
I suppose the point of all this is that, in a sense, "there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Ideas that appear to be quite innovative may actually merely updated versions of older ideas. To be fair, that does not necessarily make them less likely to be true. Still, it is striking how some ideas keep reoccurring in intellectual history. As for the persuasiveness of Kojonen's claim that design and evolution are compatible, I am inclined to agree with the authors of the Religions article, who conclude that, despite Kojonen's considerable efforts to support his claim, his argument is not ultimately convincing. Rather than to explain why, I would encourage my readers to read the article in Religions or to listen to the podcasts.
Image of the Main Building of the University of Helsinki from Wikipedia