Actually, I stopped reading partway through the third book. When they (Ian Stewart and Jack Corben) were discussing the part about the importance of genes (chapter: The secret of life), they made some comments I just couldn't get over. THey are f.ex. discussing the fact that human DNA actually contains a whole viral DNA sequence in it. This viral genome actually allows us to be born, because it stops a mother's immune system from rejecting the fetus. Which is pretty damn useful in itself.
But then they conclude that this somehow is an argument against selfish genes. They put the words selfish in italics, apparently as mockery. Which makes no sense to me at all. In fact, as far as I can tell, the whole idea about the selfish gene theory is that it'd pretty much predict that something like this would happen. Heck, Dawkins himself has discussed how the transition from being virus to become part of the ordinary DNA can happen.
They're also overstating the aspect of junk DNA being junk. Even though they are correct in that much of what we thought had no function do in fact have it, that doesn't change much. You only need one single gene that's really doing nothing at all, and then the "selfish gene" theory will be best suited to explain that, because it states that from the point of view of the gene, that's not junk at all. It's perfectly fine simply being able to split. It's only "junk" from our point of view.
I also remember they came with some comment about the "total cost" thing in book 2 (don't remember the chapter, I'm afraid). Now to my knowledge, the general consensus, especially in the gene camp, is that there is a cost associated with everything. Growing big means you require more food. Big brains require longer period of nursing. Etc. etc. They didn't seem to have much regard for the kind of evolution theory that puts the focus on this, so they suggested - before I read book 3 I thought this was a joke, but now I'm not so sure - that f.ex. the modern banana tree allowed itself to be turned into what it is by humans out of "love".
And in order to come with this claim without making it seem too outlandish, they talk about this cost-reward thing as if anything decides -beforehand- what should be done, which is a rather typical fallacy when talking about evolution. It doesn't decide anything, new abilities (or improvement of abilities, or degration of abilites) are added, and then only once it's added, you find out if the cost is bigger than the reward.
So yeah, I was impressed at first with these books, but that's sort of faded away.
