Scientists will be incredulous that anyone could get such pretentious obscurantism published. I hope that doesn't sound like a cheap jibe. It is not intended to be, but is there to make a serious point which is relevant to Poole's article. If the defence is made that Teilhard is bad theology and good theology is not like that, my reply would be this. We know how to judge bad science.
Bad science is done from time to time and it is weeded out by publicly knowable procedures.
One of the faults of process theology is that in order to accommodate contemporary scientific cosmology and academic language, it 'depersonifies' and 'dedivinizes' Christ. Poole appears to be at best equivocal on the role of evidence in evaluating theological truth. He is right that I pay religions the compliment of regarding them as scientific theories and that I see God as a competing explanation for facts about the universe and life. This is certainly how God has been seen by most theologians of past centuries and by most ordinary religious people today. But Poole is trying to have it both ways.