The article has plenty of flaws, sure, and anyone familiar with linguistics could point some of them out. One of my favorites was the statement that Broca's are

The article has plenty of flaws, sure, and anyone familiar with linguistics could point some of them out. One of my favorites was the statement that Broca's area was the language center, without any mention of Wernicke's area. But Chomsky has switched his theoretical perspective so much and so many times that it's hard to tell what his current framework actually is. And increasingly, how relevant it is to contemporary research. It seems like you're advocating the "principles and parameters" approach, but AFAIK Chomsky hasn't advocated that in something like 20 years. P&P is where Chomsky lost me—with the argument that dropping pronouns in English and French amounts to a mental switch that languages flip on or off. Whereas subsequent research immediately showed that pronoun-dropping is just a continuum where English is at one extreme. And lots of Chomsky's arguments, like the poverty of the stimulus, just plain look bad. Stephen Pinker has completely dominated popular understanding of linguistics with "The Language Instinct", which has influenced how a generation of ordinary people think about language and linguistics. And Chomsky's program dominated both academic and popular understanding before that. But linguistics is a strongly multidisciplinary and multiparadigmatic field, and this is an article aimed at a popular audience that helps make that more plain.