But if that holds then he doesn't deserve any credit for writing the book right? Since it was already predetermined.
Just like you can't say a criminal is not guilty of a crime without free will, because the concept of crime exists within the same subjective context as the experience of the criminal choosing to commit a crime. Choice and will still exist, they are just not "Free" in the sense of being determined by something outside of physics and its resulting emergent systems.
It would be like arguing that a waterfall does not exist and is not beautiful because if you look closely enough at it all you see are numbers representing the states of molecules and velocities.
Meaning does not require "free will", and the very concept of a will being "Free" is absurd since a resulting choice is either completely random (And thus not really anyone's will) or is determined by prior states and circumstances (the things that make you you) and is thus not really "Free".
Calvinists certainly didn't think sinning was good, just because people had no choice.
Nobody would say a robot helping you isn't better than one that harms you, simply because it makes no choice.
A machine programmed to write a great book is a good machine! Sapolsky should be credited and recognized!
Just because you don't have free will doesn't mean your behavior is not affected by your environment.
It can also be a self-reinforcing behavior, as giving credit can also in turn benefit you later.
Again, just because everything is predetermined doesn't mean there aren't complex dynamics in motion, ones which greatly influence behavior and the chances of making a decision. Understanding these dynamics can also influence how you behave in the future.
Edit:
It seems that I am saying "if you kick a raccoon, it will run away". And you are saying "whether I kick the raccoon or not has already been determined".
In this case, my analysis is helpful/useful while yours isn't. My analysis can influence your future behavior (e.g. if you run into a menacing raccoon in the future, it will increase the chances that you will be able to defend yourself properly), especially if you didn't know this before, while your analysis probably doesn't affect behavior (except to promote apathy perhaps, which is likely even detrimental).
[ Disclaimer: I know nothing about raccoons, it was just an example ]
It doesn't mean you are wrong, it's just that saying "everything is predetermined" is not a useful way of looking at the world. It's like saying "white paint is white", which is not very surprising.
Strictly speaking, it's not even quite correct: quantum mechanics tells us that, even though the universe has (deterministic) physical laws, it also behaves randomly at a fundamental level. However, that does not change the fact that we don't have free will (since we have zero control over the randomness).
But it's conceivable that some of our decisions might be affected by quantum randomness (this is even obvious in some contrived, but realistic Schrödinger's-cat-like scenarios).
Scientific predestination? /j