The more Holland would agree with a critical article like this one, the more we'd know his thesis is vacuous or slippery. In any case, he probably wouldn't agree with the section on his fallacies.

As to the historical narrative, that's where the cherry picking sets in. He'd emphasize Christianity's role in that narrative, and de-emphasize the influences on Christianity (Greco-Roman mystery cults, Zoroastrianism, the Axial Age reforms). Indeed, what was viral was the Axial Age, which Christianity only channeled with an anti-elitist satire, a satire that soon enough got caught up in politics so that it lost its countercultural initiative and could become "catholic," meaning all things to all people (like Paul's salesmanship).

By the way, this article is part one. The second part, on the end of Dominion where Holland addresses secular humanism directly, is coming out next week.