Samir, I think you're missing his point about the need for causal laws to back causal and counterfactual claims.  He argues that evolutionary biology doesn't have any such laws to appeal to.  
You can reject the premise that causal and counterfactual claims need to be backed by laws, or you can reject the premise that there are no relevant laws in this domain.  But you certainly *cannot* simply ignore that crucial aspect of his argument.