I am sorry if my column offended you, but please understand: I am deeply offended by the notion that myths invented in the Bronze Age by superstitious desert nomads should be given exactly the same credence as the work of people like Darwin and Einstein and Euclid and Hawking and Newton.
It is considered perfectly okay for you to mock my perfectly rational ideas about evolution, but if I point out that your position depends upon the notion of a magic superhero in the sky, you'll probably take offense. Why? Why are irrational beliefs somehow less subject to scrutiny and dissection than rational ones? Why can't we simply point out in school that some people believe that God made the world in seven days, and that's fine, but there's no actual evidence to support that, other than some poorly translated writings that were cribbed from oral traditions that were already hundreds of years old before the first written copy of Genesis ever appeared?
There were other crib-worthy sections of the column, but I figure if you are not already intrigued by that excerpt, you won't be interested in reading more.