Tarring Steve with the religiosity brush would appear to say that when I suggested that his regard for Darwin's writing was veering towards the over reverant I was accusing him of religiosity. I think that would be over-egging the pudding, to vary the metaphor.

And it's got nothing to do with my objection to what he now recognises as "an ill-considered remark".   (At last I think that's what he says.) Quite where the "disrespectful" comes in I'm not sure.