This excerpt, from an otherwise okay article about the (literal)  evolution of religious belief, irkes me:

For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.

For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.

This is just wrong. Atheists are elated at the news that religious belief may be hard-wired, because it undermines the argument of faith, the bedrock of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Atheists are delighted to tell believers that their faith may be programmed into them.

This is an attempt to build equivalence into the story where there is none. This story does not provide an equal boost (or detriment) to the arguments of atheists and believers; it almost unequivocally backs a standard atheist arguments, that faith is a biological construct. Would it have been offensive to say as much?