If I understand the point of this gibberish, I suppose he is correct..IF..you accept his premise that man is skin sack of bio-chemicals that were configured into a system as the result of time and chance.
The problem with his silly analysis is that in a "scientific, mechanistic view" of man's being you cannot define anybody as a "faulty unit" as there is no objective basis for the definition. If, for example, I want to kill Richard Dawkins, drag his family off as slaves and take his stuff, he may view it as faulty behavior but evolutionary science would view it a just another survival strategy that I undertake because it was hard wired into my brain by my Viking ancestors.
Well said :)