He focuses on one subtopic of one chapter, dismissing the rest of the scientific content of the book as failing to engage with mainstream science.
As for criticism that ID is a “God of the Gaps” argument, Michael Chaberek urges Thomists to consider where that complaint leads.
The NCSE is troubled, but this just sounds like solid science. I’m all for critical analysis of data, evaluating conclusions, and rigorous scientific inquiry.
Praising science as way to implicitly, or explicitly, club religion over the head is a familiar feature of our culture. It’s not new, either.
“Evolution” in its deepest sense is a foundational metaphysical commitment, not a scientific theory that one could test.