I don't think so. Many of the propositions were clearly broad supposition not the recitation of fact. I tried to demonstrate that using the quote about "Bible believing Christians" which if taken the way it was written would include all Christians which is demonstrably untrue. Further, the definitions the authors use are not scientific, they are broad and undefined. For example, what does "evangelical" mean? There are millions of evangelicals in the US alone. Can they be so easily and narrowly defined as Iron Age Cretans who force their children into a cult-like existence of abuse? The definitions are conveniently drawn to fit the authors' conclusions. They are working backwards. In other words instead of making observations to form a theory, they form a theory and then create definitions to prove a pre-determined point. That's not the Scientific Method.