The main gist of Rennie's critique is an objection to Shulevitz's support of the concept of "evolutionism" — "the part of evolutionary thought that reaches beyond testable science".
I did not realize there was a "part of evolutionary thought that reaches beyond testable science". There is a train of secular modernist thought that utilizes evolution as part of its philosophical basis, but that has nothing to do with science.
The misnamed Theory of Evolution — it really should be Law of Evolution, since its as fundamental and well-tested as any other physical "law" — is a robust, accepted, logically consistent theory of the origin of species. It is not a belief system. Science is not a matter of belief. Science is a process which produces, at any point in time, an explanation that best fits the currently known observations. It does not rely on blind faith or revelation. It is not religion. It is not even philosophy. It is merely an algorithm which produces useful results.
If you want to know how the world works, you engage in the algorithm we refer to as "science" ... if you want to call a friend on the phone, you engage in the algorithm we refer to as "dialing the phone". Neither requires any religious or philosophical underpinnings, they are merely methods that have historically achieved good results. As soon as science stops effectively explaining the world, we will try something else. As soon as dialing the phone stops effectively calling a friend, we will also try something else.