Andrée Rosenfeld again: "What is curious is that an essentially religious organisation feels the need to justify themselves by recourse to science - but their discourse is scientistic, not scientific." In this, they are no different from any other creationists. Try to think ourselves into the mindset of a religious fundamentalist: "I believe in my sacred texts. I am aware that science does not support their veracity. My belief is not wrong - that is axiomatic - therefore science must be. I must look into this science business, to find out where it went wrong."The fundamentalist convinces him/her/itself as supposed holes in the scientific fabric turn up, and wow! this can be used to convince others too! It's a kind of top-down learning experience; what is missing is what students get as they learn their science bottom-up: context. That, really, is why it is so difficult to actually open a dialogue with the creationist: why it is that scientists debating with creationists are effective mainly when they are pointing out their opponents' ignorance, stupidity or outright lies. Their opponent - let alone the audience - simply has no conception of context.
A book like this, simply because it is superficially scholarly and not outright trash like all the Christian creationist works I have read, might indeed make a useful deconstructionist exercise for an archaeology or palaeoanthropology class. So it's not without value. You could do worse, to, than place it in front of a Gishite with the admonition "Look here: these guys show that human physical and cultural evolution doesn't work. Therefore it follows that the Hindu scriptures are true, doesn't it?".
Your review stands on the shaky foundation of assuming that any religious believer - or "fundamentalist" - is, by very definition, ignorant, biased, and wrong.
Therefore just a review is by my lights, standing on a foundation which is biased, ignorant, and wrong.
IOW, according to the standard accepted scientic viewpoint, only atheists are worth listening to, or only those who already march lockstep with what the other like minded scientists have agreed upon as the accepted "truth".
I have read the book - have you? Are you saying that a book critiquing Darwin's theories is useless if written by someone of any particular religious views? The book in question barely mentioned the author's religious viewpoint. It was essentially a critique of the various specimens used to support evolution.
If you haven't read the book, you really don't have much to say about it that's worth listening to.