You have to always be careful about opposition to the mad people's ideas though, so you avoid alienating moderate religious people and driving them over the the extremist camp in regards to things like evolution. For example, as a lot of people have said; evolution is not an endorsement of atheism, which is not in fact a scientific outlook but philosophical one.
I do make it clear that my rejection of theism is purely philosophical, which is why I've stopped making that aspect such a focal point to my arguments. It's easy to get caught up in a debate of religion, because religion is definitely the key motivator behind creationism. It then becomes imparative to identify the false dichotomy endorsed by creationism. It's the creationists saying that evolution cannot co-exist with religion. Evolution simply says that biological change is a mechanism for survival, and nothing more.
I don't deny that the implications of evolution will call certain beliefs into question. Obviously, evolution and Noah's flood cannot co-exist in the same paradigm, and the actual six-day creation is clearly a contradiction. But to say that there is nothing beyond nature is not the point of evolution. It doesn't say that, it doesn't have to say that, and it would be very unscientific if it did.
Don't offer people black and white choices: “you either accept evolution and totally reject any involvement of a spiritual agency in the origin and formation of life or you are an irredeemable imbecile”. That's bad because it leads them to reject your ideas entirely, Much like George Bush Jnr's imbecilic remark: “you're either for us or against us”.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Again, this is a weapon I use against creationism. Instead of demanding an absolute black-and-white dichotomy, I simply point out that it's the creationist camp insisting that God and evolution cannot co-exist.
There must be compromises and fall back positions to enable them to slowly come around to your way of thinking. I'm not saying that any crazy creationist or ID notions should be taken on board, but it's fine to let people keep their ideas about some extra dimensional spiritual being having a hand in the formation of the universe and by extension; life. I'm pretty sure that's the position that most mainstream church's take these days, and it doesn't conflict in any way with the theory of evolution.
Maybe worldwide, but I seriously wonder about the States these days. We're really bad right now. Education is so mired by political wranglings that hardly anything of any value is actually taught in a science classroom.
I don't ever recall even being taught what science WAS. Almost every science class I ever had was basically a natural history lesson supported by “scientists say this and that”. That's terrible! No wonder there's such rejection. The one thing they don't teach in a U.S. science classroom is science!
It wasn't until well after high school that I got any real education in science. One of my closest friends is a biochemistry major, and another internet friend of mine is a molecular biologist. Between the two of them, I've gotten a much sturdier education than I ever got from a public school.