I don't think he gets the history right, in part because of his unbelief. He sees creationism historically as a relatively new phenomena. That's bogus, of course, since the founders of modern science were creationists. However, that doesn't totally ruin his credibility because he seems to be trying to be fair---really. I'm going to include some quotes from his book in days hence that I think you'll find of interest. Remember that he doesn't come at this with an axe to grind against humanists. He isn't going to give them a short shrift. And he writes this:
The likely source of this practice was his (George Frederick Wright) growing obsession with higher criticism, which he feared would leave ministers of the gospel unemployed, turn the Bible into a collection of fables, undermine modern civilization, and, certainly not least, make a mockery of his life work. Ironically, textual criticism had provided him in the 1860s with the intellectual freedom he needed to accept a baptized version of Darwinism; when he turned his back on the findings of modern biblical scholarship, he considerably reduced his intellectual options.
There is quote number one. What do you think?
I'll be gone from tomorrow Friday to late Tuesday night, but I'll try to check in on the road.