Someone who claims that faith is a good thing should not also use it as an accusation of impropriety.

The creationist does not claim — before cowans, gentiles, and the unwashed — that Darwinism is the wrong religion; rather, he claims that it is "a religion" as if to say that this is condemnation enough. To fellow creationists he may well say that Darwinism is Satanism, or a rival tribe to be vanquished by force or deception. But he does not expect that argument to fly with outsiders. With them he merely asserts that the (straw-)Darwinist is a hypocrite, a know-it-all elitist nerd who commits the grave faux-pas of mistaking his religion for science.

Meanwhile the sociologist of religion wonders where the temples of Darwin are. The strong-programme sociologist of science (who uses the methodological assumption that science doesn't work, even as he posts on the Internet!) can mistake a laboratory for a center of ritual, but one who has studied comparative religion does not see worship happening in the microscope, the genomics software, or the fMRI.