The article is written by a James A. Herrick, a name that didn't tell me anything (I'm not so good at remembering names). I liked some parts in the beginning, for example this:
The culture-shaping force of science fiction storytellers may be more significant and more widespread than we imagine. That's because they trade in myth. By myth, I mean a transcendent story that helps us make sense of our place in the cosmos.
I'm always astonished that people in the science fiction field are not aware of this important function of their literature: to shape our idea of the meaning and significance of science, of the future, and of our place in the world. Of course, it works just as well if you are not aware of it.
Anyway, it quickly becomes obvious that the writer of the article, Herrick, is not happy about this. He likes only one fixed set of stories, despite the fact that they are not universally helpful when it comes to interpreting the world around us.
This is where i suddenly remembered that I have read about this Herrick person recently, in the Internet Review of Science Fiction under the headline Wrong on Religion; Wrong on Science Fiction. I must say that I'm on the same side as Gabriel Mckee here: science fiction is a good medium for discussing important matters, and therefore for shaping our interpretation of things. I'm not surprised to see that Mckee also has commented the article on his blog.
It's also worth noting, again, that science fiction hardly is a homogeneous canon of ready-made myth. It's an ongoing discussion, mirroring our culture with its dreams and hopes. There are things to agree with, and things to argue against, and that's just the way it should be.