I think a large part of the problem is that both Murray and Churchill appear to be Philosophers of Religion with, it would appear, at-best superficial exposure to actual science. I think that this meant that they would be less-than-well-prepared to defend the scientific aspects of a position on “Mere Theistic Evolution” was foreseeable. As it turns out this made it easy for Meyer (who, for all his crimes-against science, is a philosopher of science by training, and therefore likely the most familiar-with-science of the trio) to outflank them on the scientific side, and makes it difficult for them to provide a scientifically-literate response.
I think the conclusion here is that, given the subject material, they should have included a philosopher of science and/or a theist evolutionary biologist in their project.
I have to wonder how much of the ‘Science and Religion’ field comes from philosophers of religion and/or theologians, with superficial exposure to science.