It’s incredibly naive to think that religion could be taught unbiasedly–either by secularists or by religious leaders. Who determines the criterion for “facts”? Presuppositions will determine what one accepts as “facts,” which means to even approach teaching a course on religion based on “facts only,” you already have to use your presuppositions in determining what’s legitimate for a class in religion. Thus, there would be no such thing as an objective look at the “facts” about religion. That such is possible is an enlightenment myth.

Also, he picks on Rick Warren’s belief in intelligent design (which is different than creationism, but he doesn’t seem to be aware of these sorts of distinctions) rather than engaging, say, the Oxford/Cambridge/Berkley/Harvard Scientist’s who have tried to argue for intelligent design. That’s not good protocol, and it makes his critique of things weak. Rick isn’t a scientist or a philosopher, he’s just a pastor. 

Finally, he took Rick’s comment in a way that Rick probably never meant it, and read into it certain motives that may or may not have been present (even IF his interpretation was correct)—namely, the motive of throwing down a “wild card” to trump any “reasonable” inquiry or questioning of religious beliefs. Such an understanding of Rick’s comment is not only a misinterpretation of what a statement like that tends to mean to Christians like Rick Warren (again, demonstrating his ignorance of religious philosophy), but it also is guilty of reading motives into the statement, as if such motives could be accessed even if they were present. 

Sloppy engagement.