The article is disorienting, and it glosses over the real issues. “It's time to admit that the water is wet”, oh yes.
“The view of biology” they talk about doesn't exist. What exists is pop-science, with its acolytes and proselytes, boldly claiming that everything is as easy as 1-2-3:
1) We just make a list of All The Genes.
2) We put All The Data into the Computer.
3) We solve any problem by finding a relevant connection.
Just imagine how much nonsense was said about “genes”, from racial cleansing projects to self-help books — or reasoning why corner store closed. As we are speaking about all kinds of genealogy, it is worth mentioning that pop science is a distant cousin of real science, and is closer to 19th century militant vulgar materialism, the kind of marketplace “science” which promised that corpses would get reanimated by wondrous electricity in the same manner it made frog's leg move. “Only need to figure enough details”, as usual. Now “genes” or “evolution” are just a way for common people to talk about “fate” or “dog-eat-dog” in “scientific” terms.
With that sorted out, we can study the scientists. Unfortunately, a lot of them aren't that different from the general public in understanding that for each efficiency of some model, there is a corresponding deficiency. Educated people honestly ask why we shouldn't use computer metaphors so carelessly all the time. It's like asking why hammers can't be used for everything, or why integers exist when we can use floating point for everything (and also deliberately ignore the complexities because “we're dealing with general cases, we don't need that”). Is there something wrong with the hammer? No, there isn't, something is wrong with the people who don't really understand what they are doing.
So the book review basically says “Fine, we all know it's a pathetic circus, but it's our circus, and lots of people are trained to play their parts, so let's declare some patented nonsense outdated, do a facelift, an go on”.