Well, it was Sawyer's assertion that he was writing as a big believer in evolution, trying to start a conversation with intelligent design proponents, trying to find the middle of the debate. He did say he was trying to create a premise where there was some evidence discovered that proves a creator, but I didn't think the evidence he premised the book on really would necessitate a creator.
I appreciated that he presented the reality that there could be a creator even if evolution was true. In fact, he talks in the book about how you can have a soul without god or god without a soul. I think that could really blow the mind of a theist reading the book. I know when I read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, as a Christian, the assertion that the stories of Cain & Abel and Adam & Eve were in fact allegorically but not literally true as a matter of history really blew my mind. The fact of evolution is never questioned by human or alien scientists in Calculating God. That's all fine.
However, I do feel ID proponents will feel vindicated by this book, even though no such evidence exists, while I felt no such vindication. It feels like a giveaway to some folks that don't deserve it. These are people who are trying to do an end run around the law to teach creationism in the classroom, and so are unworthy of any deference. I don't believe any of these people would settle for a deistic universe with a creator who is a super-advanced alien from another dimension and never hears our prayers. So, I'm just not sure how useful this kind of bridge-building is; it seems only to give them greater advance.
It was a genuinely interesting premise (this is Sawyer's strength as an author) and a moderately good read, nonetheless. It's philosophically engaging, which is what appeals to me most.