So, there are a few key takeaways here. I'm just going to blatantly steal the author's version:
First, there is zero correlation between saying one "believes" in evolution & understanding the rudiments of modern evolutionary science...
Second, "disbelief" in evolution poses absolutely no barrier to comprehension of basic evolutionary science...
Third -- and here we are getting to the point where the new data come in! -- profession of "belief" in evolution is simply not a valid measure of science comprehension.
Okay, well and good. But I'd argue that he's also eliding a key epistemological question. Namely, can you lay claim to fundamentally understanding a theory of science if you're wrong about it?
Let's say I'm Tycho Brahe. My contemporary, Nicolaus Copernicus, has published a book in which he suggests that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Based on my knowledge of astronomy, mathematics, and religion, I propose an alternate view, one which says that it's actually the sky spinning around the Earth. After all, the Earth is way too heavy to spin like Copernicus suggests.
So with regard to this subject, does Tycho Brahe understand the science?