I agree with fcm that is not religion per se that humans need, more a sense that life is meaningful and purposeful. This is often supplied by religion with it's explanations and answers and rules for living. You have to be brave to be an existentialist.
The divisions that arise because of religion are due to the fact that a lot of people who espouse particular religions ignore the bit that says "Have respect for others. Do not harm people", and instead find bits of doctrine that justify the particular behaviour they want to engage in. Religion is supposed to help us to be better people. The fact that a depressingly large number of people seem incapable of actually following the rules they proclaim to espouse isn't the fault of religion. That is the fault of the humans.
The idea that we have a gene for religion is interesting. If you think about it, one of the precepts of a lot of religions is refraining from conflict and co-operating. That really could be described as a survival strategy. Conquering territory and amassing resources was probably the first survival instinct or strategy. The need to co-operate probably arose later, most likely among potential victims of conquerors, or as the need to find food to survive became less pressing as people learnt to husband resources. So maybe we are hard-wired for religion, just as we seem to be for conflict.
(And mainstream Protestants can't be filed under the heading "Fanatics", Regull, you cheeky girl. The "mainstream" is an indicator of this. Even my grandad believed this. He said to me once,"And don't you listen to anyone who tells you Protestants are bad people, gertie. I knew a Protestant from Dublin, once, and he was a very nice fella.")
I think fcm's first reading of the article weas correct: I bet Michael doesn't believe in global warming. I am with jester on Crichton's article: it's smooth, but exactly who is he criticising? Are there a lot of people going on about "Eden"? He seems to suggest environmentalists are romantics who hamper Science and Progress, and are responsible for the deaths of millions of people in Africa. (Umm Michael, I don't think we can blame environmentalists for that.) Having established this, he pops in a few remarks in favour of his pet ideas. We know people can come up with conflicting studies to support different ideas. Crichton here is saying "Let's be analytical about this" and then goes on to use emotive rather than substantiated arguments. He does it well, and makes a nice appearance of rational discussion - but doesn't say who exactly has been dominating environmental policy so detrimentally, and who he thinks will do a much better job. I know he doesn't want to get sued - but he could be more specific on the policies he thinks are the go. All in all, I admire the persuasive strategy of the piece, but I do like my propaganda properly labelled.