The problem with creationism is it an extremist position. It's followers are Biblical literalists and seem unable or unwilling to engage with Biblical texts in any meaningful way. The logical conclusion to a literalist approach to religion of any kind is it will end up supporting violence and the oppression of women, gays and whomever else their particular key texts spoke against. In truth, there's little difference in intent to forcing Christian creationism to be taught in schools or there Taliban stopping girls from going to school; both are expressions of the literalist mindset.

Personally I cannot understand this passive-aggressive approach to religion. It eschews nuance and contemplation for the worst kind of blind faith; to illustrate this note our resident creationist always gets his information from a limited range of sources, and expresses no opinion of his own that contradicts these sources, despite the fact they inaccurate, misrepresentative or even outright lies. All we get is a constant, negative repetition of these tired old ideas.

Although I'm not religious in the sense that we are guided by the hand of a supernatural deity, I don't agree with Steve's assertion "[Religious faith] is absolutely in conflict with science". Many palaeontologists (as with other scientists) are religious and I'm guessing that their faith is a tad more considered and sophisticated than that of the extremists. Many of these scientists conduct and publish research that gives the creationists the howling fantods, but which they somehow reconcile (or do they?) with their faith. If they are scientists, I suspect the internal debate is ongoing as (and I'm not singling scientists out here as being special in this regard) they have very active internal dialogues on the go as research never really stops.

Of course, any group of people is a microcosm of our wider society and scientists have their own extremists, although these tend to be sidelined as the peer review process means these people are prevented from publishing (as are sloppy or plagiaristic scientists), although they are increasingly finding a voice on the internet. Although Dawkins doesn't fall into this category, I do find his approach a tad too confrontational and can't help think it alienates more people than it converts.

You have to wonder how these extremists end up with so much money and power. How come creationists and climate change deniers are able to operate to the point where they effect policy creation? There's no doubt many of these people seem pretty aggressive and rather boorish in nature.

I worry about the polarisation of science and religion as it is driven by extremists. Dialogue is the only way forward, even if we don't agree on many things.