That example is patently ridiculous, I agree. To try to link the keeping of a chimpanzee as a pet to Darwinism is just silly. If that woman did treat the chimp like her son, then it would be much more reasonable to look at possible mental issues that the woman had, rather than blaming a false ideology that no-one seriously suggests except the people who then try to tear it down.
But to get back to that excerpt of the True Reason book, I found something that seemed a bit funny in his discussion of "reason proper". He seems to assume that because it isn't discussed in atheist literature and that, presumably, atheist leaders "don't practice it" (of course, he subsequently claims that it would be an empty claim no matter how well it was demonstrated, because reason comes from God, don't you know), that atheists somehow don't practice "reason proper" (that is, the ability to draw conclusions from premises, etc).
Certainly seems like a strawman to me. He painstakingly constructed this definition of "reason proper", claimed that atheists didn't talk about it and their leaders didn't practice it, but strangely declined to provide any examples to illustrate his point. *eyeroll* If this is the part that they expect to draw people in, they can keep it.