There's an interesting debate going on within the scientific community regarding the degree to which evolution is constrained by functional and morphological limits. It's possible that only a limited set of configurations, such as potential enzyme structures, are compatible with function, and EE mentions this. But, once again, inflation sets in, and this very real debate is used to raise the possibility that structural similarities can never be used to infer common descent; nobody in the scientific community is making that argument.

This is pretty typical of all the scientific material in the book. Even when it has its facts right, they're embedded in interpretations that none of the actual scientists cited are likely to recognize. The mere presence of actual science does nothing to outweigh the general morass of errors, distortions, and faulty logic that comprise the bulk of the book. The book as a whole acts like a funhouse mirror, distorting and removing the context from the bits of science that do appear.

Collectively, these problems ensure that anyone using this as a source of information about science in the classroom will leave their students with a picture of modern biology that is essentially unrelated to the way that science is actually practiced within the biological science community. More generally, the logical inconsistencies will leave students bewildered about the nature of scientific reasoning.

In this sense, the book's claim that it represents an attempt at inquiry-based learning is a sham. The process of IBL requires both an accurate presentation of information and an effort to lead students through scientific reasoning based on it. EE not only skips the accuracy requirement, but it abdicates the responsibility for reasoning entirely.