Not great. The author likes to draw comparisons with Catholicism, which I find confusing as I do not share this background.
The first half is about the development of cells and genetic material. I didn't learn much from this section. The text is dry, and there are no illustrations (except in chapter headings) or chemical formulae/equations, making it hard to follow (the reproductive cycle of a plant needs diagrams because I find it confusing). I didn't learn very much from this section, although I was surprised by the explanation of how vaccines work.
The part about eukaryotic cells is confusing. The author promotes the idea that these did not come about through the fusion of a archaeon and a bacterium (and he uses "bacteria" to describe both when "prokaryote" would do, which is also confusing). This leads to the conclusion that eukaryotes developed completely independently despite sharing characteristics of both sorts of prokaryotic cells. I also wonder where a eukaryotic cell without mitochondria would have found the energy to perform the energy-intensive tasks that he postulates - like growing substantially or eating other cells. I get the impression he didn't like Lynn Margulis' theory about endosymbiosis.
The second half is philosophy and speculation about the mind and about humanity - I got bored and skipped large sections.
The author doesn't like environmentalists, calling them anti-science.
Better books exist, e.g. books by Nick Lane.