"For example, Robert Koons argues for the concordance of science and theism, even going so far as to say that Christian theism made science possible. He ignores substantial Greek and Roman advancements in science. Moreover, there is not a single mention of the Christian Dark ages, where progress in science halted for centuries."
What are those Greco-Roman substantial advancements in science? Their medicine was useless, their cosmology and most of physics was discredited, their chemistry was false, and they didn't know about the scientific method. And there's no single mention of the Dark Ages by Koons because any historian worth his salt knows that there were no Dark Ages that halted science to begin with. It's something stuck on the popular level and believed by ignoramus like you because it confirms their anti-religious prejudices but not taken seriously in serious historical research.
"In the chapter on the teleological argument, Author Robin Collins relies on the "prime principle of confirmation," which states that "whenever we are considering two competing hypotheses, an observation counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which the observation has the highest probability" (p. 136). Unfortunately, by Collins' logic, this means that if I win the lottery, this is strong evidence in favor of the hypothesis that magic gnomes love and favor me, and have the power to make me win the lottery. While Collins is aware of this limitation, it is fair to say that as presented, Collins' chapter lacks the depth needed to make a strong argument for theism."
What kind of depth do you expect from an introductory book? Collins is aware of this objection and addresses it on page 206 of "Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology".