Well I guess his discussion about random mutations to Windows XP dated it!
He is, and if he were arguing the other side I think I would find it irritating, but he made a hell of a lot of good points.
One that I particularly liked, was his observation that successive cycles of luck/filter by NS would be independant. This is something that intrigues me - say for example (I know this is idealised) that you have an animal developing a long neck to eat the tops of trees. If each stop is utterly independent of its predecessor, evoution might lengthen the neck a little, then increase the bulk of the animal to help it knock down trees (as I think elephants do), then produce a change that would help it to digest grass...... There would be no direction to the process.
It is not logically essential to provide an alternative theory in order to demolish the previous theory.
I think the problem is, they have clearly won the argument, but the others don't concede defeat in public. As I think he said, in private a lot of biologists recognise the severe problems with the natural selection hypothesis.
David