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.
His choice of targets for criticism and for praise have a lot more to do with his particular agenda than the defects or merits of those whom he critiques.
This is awesome. It’s hard to imagine a more compelling endorsement for a book.
There are innumerable descriptions and definitions of theistic evolution. How things are phrased matters a lot.
Is it true, as one critics says, that “cancer regularly innovates with proteins of novel function”?