The phrase you ask about appears in the blurb, but not in the book itself. However, the book does distinguish between “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, in a fairly common way, i.e., between observable changes at the level of species or maybe genus, and inferred, more radical changes that over greater lengths of time produce whole new families, orders, classes, etc. [And yes, I know that many evolutionary biologists would say that macroevolution is just microevolution extended over time, so no need to “correct” me on this; I’m merely explaining Chaberek’s usage.]
This distinction is important in a book on Thomistic theology, because Thomas Aquinas puts restrictions on the kinds of change that can occur without direct divine action. New “natures” cannot be produced without direct divine action, though variations on existing natures can be. For example, a brown bear might over time yield black bears and white bears, or a basic “ox” type might yield a variety of oxen, and that would not violate any principle of Thomistic metaphysics; but larger changes would do so. (One must remember that Thomas accepts, in the main, Aristotle’s understanding of metaphysics and of physics, and integrates that understanding into a Christian understanding of created nature.)
Chaberek, unlike Feser and some other Thomists, thinks that Thomistic thought precludes macroevolutionary change – unless that change is perceived as being aided by divine interventions, which for Chaberek means that God is not merely letting living things evolve naturally, but is directly creating radically new entities (even if making use of earlier genetic and somatic material).
The debate among Thomists rages on. I’m not asking anyone to endorse Chaberek’s side, but for those whose ideas on Thomas and evolution are shaped by philosophers like Edward Feser and theologians like NIcanor Austriaco, and think that such writers have settled the question, it is good to have an alternative interpretation of Aquinas available, for comparison and contrast. Chaberek’s book is filled with primary texts from Aquinas from which he defends his conclusions.
Of course, you might ask: “What does it matter what Thomas Aquinas thought about evolution?” And you might answer, “It doesn’t matter at all, since he had no modern biological knowledge.” But in the world of discourse in which Feser, Austriaco, Chaberek, etc. live and breathe, Thomas Aquinas is an unimpeachable authority on theology and metaphysics, and therefore is relevant even on scientific matters insofar as those matters have a metaphysical component. So in that world of discourse, the initial question is not whether or not evolution is true, but whether or not evolution is compatible with Aquinas’s principles. The question of what a Thomist should do if Aquinas and evolution disagree is another question entirely. I think I can guess what you and several others here would say in answer to that latter question, but it is a different kind of question from the first one, which is a question for exegesis, theology, and philosophy, not for modern biology, geology, etc.