Thanks for that, @Dan_Eastwood!
One incidental bit about that book: a brainy engineer friend who reviewed it (and disagreed with the better part of it) was put off by the subtitle – The Failed Dogma of Evolution and a Fresh Model of Creationism – because in his view evolution is a genuine scientific theory and not a dogma. Yet I chose it not simply to be provocative but to suggest that evolution fails as dogma, i.e., when presented and promulgated as an unchallengeable truth. I take it that precisely because evolution is a genuine scientific theory, it is (in principle at least) only provisionally confirmed and always amenable to potential falsification like any other. I say that to clarify that I’m not just trying to be offensive for offense’s sake.
– none of which really matters, since I’ve sold maybe two copies over the last three months. 
All I can say is it wouldn’t completely surprise me. I won’t pretend to be an unbiased observer of the situation, but often it seems to me like ideology has infected the dialogue to the point that maybe Peaceful Science simply cannot be had. That’s why I embrace a third way, which is to leave scientists and educators to their work, essentially promote creationism (or ID, teleology, etc.) as a branch of apologetics rather than science education, and (informally) encourage the teaching of systems theory rather than evolution as a neutral unifying theoretical paradigm of biology. I don’t know of anyone who agrees with me, though.
Fair enough. In that case I will just mention in passing that I was ready, though certainly not eager, to acknowledge an error (regarding my evident misreading of @Mercer’s “retrospective explanations”); then push back a bit on @John_Harshman’s reply; then reply again to @Mercer re: his take on explanatory power and hypothesis testing. But if you’d rather let the thread die, I would just as soon get back to things that cause me less stress anyway.
Thanks likewise for that acknowledgement.