Andrew Brown's article is cartoonish. Most educated Catholics and Anglicans are indeed creationists. But they are not the Brown caricature of a creationist. If you believe in something infinitely intelligent and subtle, then you are hardly going to second guess it.

And for this reason most Catholics and Anglicans have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the theory of evolution to the extent that it is an explanatory falsifiable account of what is. To that extent. It is only when the theory of evolution is overextended - extruded - into suppositions, semantic games, theology and the meaning of life that it is partially rejected by religious people. This is reference of course to the deluded who are working in the field of evolutionary psychology, the heirs to phrenology, and their confreres in ancillary fields.

When Andrew Brown,who is on the agnostic borders of new atheism, and all the other new atheists – let’s lump them all together - direct all their criticism of religion at the stupidly extreme; at the American evangelists, then they become extremely irrelevant.

An argument like the one Andrew Brown puts forward is just a red herring, a side track into the US religious Badlands. Why do journalists and media people constantly direct their reflections on religion into the Badlands of America? For me the reason is simple. They still have the mentality of servants of empire. The empire is dead, long live the new empire. Their great grandfathers fought in the Punjab and did a damn good job administering it. Now they are on the periphery in the UK, in the New Punjab, concerned with the state of affairs in the glorious metropolis.

Were I a student who came from a religious family, and not a cartoon religious villain - the kind the new atheists (and their agnostic fellow travellers) imagine they are up against, I would prefer to face someone who was openly hostile and said why they were, to someone who was patronising and superior who never actually gave a clear account of why exactly his arguments were superior.

Where are these arguments? There is the assumption of elitism which can't rest solely on Darwinism. That would be foolish, Darwinism doesn't encompass all nature and human endeavour. Then why exactly would someone like Andrew Brown think he is in a position where he might advise teachers to patronise and tolerate the belief of a child from a religious family? It's the assumptions behind this article that I think are quite offensive.

Let's indulge these creationist children, says Andrew Brown. From what high ground do you 'indulge' them Mr Brown? From where exactly do you derive your own puissant sense of intellectual superiority? Your upbringing perhaps? Your education? Your experience? Your achievements? Are you convinced that these give you sufficient license?

Of course the creationists in question are children. But in my experience the arguments of the children of proselytising atheists betray, not intelligence, but high levels of intolerance. Carte blanche to all the intolerant atheists. And look at them, these atheists. Many of the children who believe in creation also happen to be the children of first second or third generation immigrants, of asylum seekers.

Isn't it just so convenient to be able turn on them. The right are the new atheists. The social Darwinists. The left are more tolerant. Not in the Nick Cohen sense of the word. We accept the solidarity of our religious brothers and sisters in the fight for social justice. You on the other hand. What are your politics?

The left who attack religion do so claiming it is the opiate of the people. And yet in the field, in NGOs and on the different battlefronts where the cause is social justice, the left is more tolerant. In another way religion is simply a way of life. It is like a habit, the eating of Marmite soldiers dipped in egg yolk. It is as real as breakfast and singing, birth marriage and death. It is a human response to all these things, the living of them.

There is no insipid, simplistic, objective-rationalist account of what makes people tick that can very usefully rationalise or deconstruct a religious response to the art of life. But if the claim is that there is such an account, then that rational explanation had better be as complicated and rich and intelligent and thoughtful and full of love and hate and contradiction and humanity as people's religious response, as their religious life.

The grand theory that is supposed to be able to boil down human experience is a simple evolutionary abacus half understood by graduates from the arts, the classics and media studies. And the biggest joke of all is that you don't need to fully understand it, or have all the evidence for it in order to apply it to absolutely anything.

'Good' research says Andrew Brown, tells us that children are 'natural creationists?  Good research like hell? Define research. Do you know what hard core scientists in the physical sciences think of your 'good' research in the social sciences? They think it is a pretence. They think it merely poses as science. It is subjective insight posing as objectivity. Take all 'good research' in the social sciences with a pinch of cracked salt, as you would a 'scientific' opinion poll.

You can keep faith with rationality. That's very important. But a lazy, unaccountable, referential, patronising, reductive, dehumanising faith.

No thank you.

To me Andrew Brown's article is highly presumptuous because it pre-supposes. Religious children are poor deluded fools and that have, according to research, a 'natural propensity' to be creationists anyway. An example of presupposition is:

When did you stop beating your wife?

Now, a new one is:

You should be patient with the deluded children of the religious who believe in creation.

Really, Andrew Brown?

Well I have neither beaten my wife, nor are my children deluded.