You missed the point. The basic assertion of his work, a priori, is wrong. There is no need to dissect point 4 when point 1 is seriously flawed.
There is absolutely no basis in his assertion. He is making an argument by starting with a false premise. The interpretive framework for Dispensational premillenialism rests on its own merit, not on the perceived relationship to a theological position that some evolutionist doesnt support.
No I didn't as evidenced by your non-response.