I'm warming up to write a full-scale review of this book, but probably not here. For now, what I'll say in its favour is that it's clearly written. In fact, I found the style quite enjoyable. Mind you, something a bit denser might have been necessary if the arguments were going to be explored in any depth. What tends to happen is that a very simple argument gets presented in the main text, but there will then be a lengthy comment in the notes on anything at all tricky. The notes tend to say, "On the one hand this, on the other hand that," when what is really needed is some deep analysis of premises and arguments ... but at least they do seem to realise that there are problems for some of their claims.
Unfortunately there's a depressing shallowness about the book, perhaps because so much of it reads like an attempt to rationalise the authors' pet prejudices on what are really quite peripheral issues: "Pluto should still be classified as a planet!" "Carl Sagan was persecuted by the scientific establishment!" "PZ Myers is a big meanie!" In all of these examples, the proposition is dubious, as is the connection to the actual argument (something about the importance of getting more of the American population to understand something about science). Still, credit where credit is due: Mooney and Kirshenbaum write well enough from sentence to sentence.
Though they have rendered the book unreadable, at least for me, with the decision to use enormously long notes for any points where they feel that (slightly) more sophisticated argument is required, someone who doesn't care too much about following the argument in real time, as it were, could read the main text very quickly, then savour the notes at leisure. That seems to me like a very strange way to read a book, but I can only assume that something like this is what the authors had in mind. Maybe they'll turn up here and tell us. All in all, it's a pretty disastrous structure that they've chosen, but it might work for some readers, and again, the quality of the actual prose is not the problem. No one should doubt that they can write. The question is, can they argue fairly and in depth? On that score, well not so much.