If you want to believe this rubbish, you probably will, I'd you look at it objectively you'll see this for the rubbish that it is.
This book is one of the worst I have ever wasted my time reading. It is a less of a critical view on evolution, and more a critique of a book used to teach it in the USA. As he states in the book schools books are often more about economy than being cutting edge. To be honest I've not read the US education book, and the integrity of one book is not a viable arguement against evolution.
Some of the statements are just ridiculous. For example, he states Galileo and Newton were creationists (no £&@& Sherlock, they died long before evolution, so what exactly does this show?).
The book talks a lot about a suppossed assumption in evolutions that creationism is wrong. This is not an assumption, but an outcome of the theory.
It talks about science creating a theory to fit the facts and testing it and refining it depending on the outcome of tests and new information as though this is some how dishonest.
It lists the facts that scientists have made errors and corrected theories in the passed, and that they don't always agree with each other as evidence of creationism. This is merely evidence that people aren't perfect, and could be twisted to arguments against evolution, but certainly not an argument for creationism.
He devotes a chapter to missing intermediate species. From his numbers in the book there are an estimated 1 in 5 families of animals that have no fossil record (an example of a family of animals being cat or dog, which he conveniently doesn't explain. If this many families are missing, there are many more species missing, and it is expected that intermediates make a minute percentage of these. In essence the odds of finding a fossilised intermediate are in the region of 1 to hundreds of millions, or even billions.