It has always troubled me when ID (or YEC, OEC) use the TE wiithout always clarifying what their real target is to those who don’t know the details or don’t investigate too deeply.
I am sympathetic to your critique here. Still it would’ve been far better if the editors sent BioLogos their summary definition of TE to see if it is accurate. But BioLogos, as you know, thinks it’s a straw man. It would’ve been an easy thing to do. Now BL has an easy “out.” it’s a shame, because I too want BioLogos to answer some of the concerns you raise.
Yep, that’s my assessment too. I did like some of the philosophical discussions about the nature of science and methodological naturalism. But the biblical and theological stuff was disappointing overall.
The lack of care on definition I noted above is why I fear this excellent question is not getting enough attention more widely. I think the posture of the Crossway book prevents this discussion, rather than encouraging it.