Finally got around to this one myself, and I had the same reaction. His critique around the 30-min mark that evolutionary creationists are much more willing to bend theology to science than vice versa is mystifying. How does one “bend science” to fit theology? This strikes me as a category error of the highest magnitude. Theology and morality can set limits on scientific inquiry – such as banning certain types of experiments on human subjects – but theology cannot and should not be used to re-interpret the results of scientific inquiry. That’s like saying, “I don’t like your facts. Go get some new ones that fit my religious beliefs.”
Holding uncertain claims in tension is fine, but what fits that description? The origin of life? Common descent? The age of the earth? Global flood? Only one of those things is uncertain. Teaching people otherwise is setting them up for failure.
The “purity culture” of the 2000s did a lot of damage. Do some digging around before you buy the book.