"When religious people fight back it then drags in more moderate science types."

I think you're being too kind.  Religion has been at this "war" for centuries, long before science was even a player.  Every facet of the worldview was subject to religious approval and existed in political tension with whatever rulers (or government) were in place.

The problem is that religion doesn't lend itself to discussion or debate.  Virtually everything is premised on the idea that the information is infallable and therefore beyond questioning.  While I don't have a problem with people having whatever beliefs suit their fancy or help them get through life, I have a serious problem with the notion that such ideas should be given credence simply because someone believes them.  This is where it enters the public policy debate and becomes a part of the argument you've mentioned.

I think your comment is also important in distinguishing between "religious people" and "religion".  There is no question that an individual can hold whatever beliefs they like.  When those beliefs become organized, they become political and deserve to be challenged.  So the problem in discussing evolution, isn't whether an individual believes in it or not.  In fact, belief should have nothing to do with it.  However, when enough people want to use their belief to force political alternatives, it moves well beyond the simple definition of "religion".

While there are certainly people that "hate" the opposing side, let's be clear about something else.  A belief is one thing, but a religion is an organized political machine and doesn't deserve any special courtesies to grant it more power.   I have never seen evidence that any religion, given an opportunity won't immediately step in to fill the political void or gather power for itself.  I believe they should be accorded the same level of respect and trust we bestow on our politicians, because that is ultimately what they are.