Well, anything is comparable to anything else, but some analogies are stronger than others. The most interesting Christian themes derive from paganism and from perennial religious traditions, so their universality wouldn't be so surprising. Your line of criticism reminds me of John Gray's in Black Mass. He compares utopian secular endeavours to Christian teleology.

But my take on the secular project isn't utopian. Elsewhere, I talk about transhumanism and about the existential stakes in building an artificial world to replace monstrous nature, but I don't have religious faith in any of this. I've even speculated that technoscientific mastery of nature was foreshadowed by animists. Scientists saw nature as being flush with spirit. Cityscapes and high tech make it so by imposing human meaning and purpose onto the indifferent wilderness.

Those ironies are real. But you want to say I'm caught within a Christian framework or something like that. Your criticism goes off the rails, though, at the end of your comment. I don't say the enlightened are existentially superior to the benighted, since I think everyone has the potential to be philosophically awakened. But I do reject the politically correct, woke conceit that everyone is eternally equal in all interesting respects, regardless of what we do or become in life. That's just nonsense.

"Pre-Darwinian"? What's more natural than dominance hierarchies? What we should be searching for is a way to escape natural inequalities, to be able to shape our identities as we see fit. We'd therefore go our own way, in which case artificial inequalities would be bound to crop up. So what? Inequality of outcomes between people isn't inherently bad since they might be earned and preferred.

You strawman the point about social engineering. The political point there doesn't entail the "elimination" of premodern worldviews. You neglect the possibility of accommodating them, by way of staying true to the modern liberal principle of tolerance.