Gets almost everything wrong, but in insidious ways. To prove this let's take a look at one of the first passages in the book, the conclusion to the section "What is Evolution? What is Natural Selection?" from page 9:
"So, finches, tigers, and frogs are all merely “bags of DNA,” and when these animals die, their genes live on."
The book's strawman of someone accepting evolution is one who thinks so lowly of animals as to consider them only "bags of DNA." When looking at just the mechanism by which DNA propagates over long time periods this may be a reasonable, if antagonistic comparison, but on the scale of individual animals this term is objectively wrong. Animals have thoughts and feelings, and make decisions based on them, and sure the basic structure of their body is sculpted by DNA but there are other factors that make even genetic clones unique.
"Biology is not concerned with purpose"
That's reserved for philosophy. Biology, like all science, is concerned with accurately describing the world based on data.
"the only real “purpose” of life is for DNA to make more copies of itself."
Only from the DNA's perspective. But unless you are assuming that you and all other living beings are extremely nihilistic life may have other purposes.
"Thus, according to Darwinism, the goal of life is survival—nothing less, nothing more."
Lol Darwinism. Is one a Newtonist if he or she believes that gravity exists? The goal of anything, including life, is not part of the scope of Biology but philosophy.
This kind of reasoning continues for the next 60 pages.
I'd give this book two stars for at least trying to come up with a consistent argument against evolution but it fails in even that by nicking many of its ideas from Kent Hovind.
(review of free book)