Do you notice how many of these reviewers complain that there's a "bias" in this podcast, as if there is no bias in their own opinions? But, in fact, there is no such thing as objectivity, even in science.
This is not science anyway, it's a podcast about science, and the choices made by Scientific American are choices. That makes them subjective. As is your opinion about this review. As is this review. All the newscasters and historians can boast that they are objective, but they are delusional, and this pretense of objectivity gets in the way of real thought, real information, and real understanding of complex issues.
As Stephen Colbert quips, it seems that reality has a liberal bias. The complaints often mention the E word. Understanding how evolution works is basic to understanding almost all the life sciences, and so it comes up when discussing biology, ecology, medicine, etc. So go watch Fox News if you want to hear only those opinions you already agree with. How dull is that?
As the fictional character Greg House says, if you don't believe in evolution, you should be happy to get good old penicillin. But the germs that were successfully killed by penicillin died, and the ones that happened to survive produced offspring that survived penicillin too. That's evolution. That's how resistant bacteria got here. If you don't believe that, then why are you even listening to a science podcast?