I come from the science and academia camp. I do not mean I carry out scientific experiments or that I am a stuffy Don at Oxford university, rather that I tend to read about various science subjects and accept scientific evidence if it has been properly presented and the evidence is sound. I rarely read newspapers and I certainly never read the tabloid "scum sheets" (I think they all twist the truth) and, if I did, I'd read one that opposed my personal views rather than one that agreed with me. I am reasonably (though not ultra) logical, my upbringing was fairly hard-line Roman Catholic and I have a number of strongly held beliefs.
A key belief I hold is that something I cannot see, touch, feel, hear, taste or smell requires some kind of demonstrable or logical proof (mathematical, indirectly derived data or whatever) before I'll agree that it exists or has happened. Like many others I tacitly accept things that I am told but, if pushed on the subject, will fall back on the need for empirical evidence. Sure, I believe in love, lust etc. and that there exist some things that cannot be adequately explained at present but I won't be first in line to try and persuade someone else that they do.
Around 3 years ago I became involved in a forum called "The Nexus" which concerned itself with religion and philosophy. It was interesting & highly enjoyable ... there was a wide spectrum of opinion ranging from cult religious views to ultra-logical & scientific. Unlike some other forums the people there seemed to be open & friendly (some of the religious and atheist newsgroups are aggressive places) so it seemed a good place to get involved in some informal debates.
For a while I lurked and it became apparent that the subject of most interest (to me) was that of "Creation Science". Being a fairly hard-line ("strong") atheist and adherent of science I could go off on a verbal rampage about how "Creation Science" is an oxymoron (a self-contradictory concept) and is not a science at all but since that is the purpose of the website that would be a bit pointless so I'll let the site articles do that for me. I will, however, point out that, unlike true science, "Creation Science" is teleological, that is to say, it starts with a conclusion and designs/promotes/publishes experiments that support that initial conclusion.
Anyone with a reasonable level of education should tell you that you cannot arrive at a conclusion without some evidence, yet "Creation Science" manages to do just that. For that reason "Creation Science" can be seen to not be a science at all, simply a cult religion seeking to justify it's own outdated beliefs.
With that in mind I adopted the handle "Stormtrooper" and entered the fray joining already (in my eyes) formidable evolution proponents such as Firewall and ~Demosthenes amongst others.
The informal debate raged and over time it became apparent to me that those supporting "Creation Science" adopted a particular strategy when faced by those supporting true science. They didn't play fair.
Creationists nearly always claim that they have a number of questions, points or similar that the evolutionist cannot answer and, in a (very small) way, they are correct. Science and evolution do not have all the answers ... what they have is a hypothesis (these days largely accepted as fact) and an incredibly large body of evidence. However, science does not know all the answers which is exactly the way it should be ... if it wasn't it would violate a key aspect of "true science" that of tentativeness and science would die (i.e. scientific research would cease) becoming, effectively, historical. But science continues because humans, as a species, want to know all there is to know and recognise that they do not know everything.
After a while I came to the realisation that creationism has no evidence to support its own peculiar theories ... every single bit of so-called "evidence" it has is designed to pick holes in major scientific theories (e.g. the theory of evolution) yet provide no support for its own position.
Creationists lie and use outdated, irrelevant "evidence". Time and time again I have responded to creationist questions, after simple Internet searches, with evidence that has already "debunked" that particular claim. This, to the creationist, is OK though ... it's a tried and tested technique known as "Lying for Jesus".
Creationists avoid the questions they don't want to answer. Sometimes I spend hours researching a post making sure I answer every relevant point made only to have key points ignored and lost because my opponent cannot or does not want to answer that point. Later on the same, already answered, point comes up again as if new ... it is incredibly frustrating. Also, like (I suspect) the majority of scientists and evolutionists, if good evidence is presented opposing my views I will admit that I am wrong and adjust my personal beliefs accordingly. No hard-line creationist will ever admit he or she is wrong in any key respect.
In my opinion no current creation theory or criticism can stand against a well-armed & intelligent evolutionist who us prepared to put in the time and effort to research the evidence and justify his or her position.
Religion is a matter of faith and "Creation Science" is not science but religion trying to justify supernatural beliefs using pseudo-science. "Creation Science" should stay clear of true science until they start researching their evidence in a proper scientific manner ... however they will not do this because, if they did, their entire hypothesis and belief system would fall like a house of cards.
In closing I would like to say that I do not, in any way, object to someone believing in religion or divine creation, but when they dress it up and try to portray it as a science using pseudo-science methods I do ... strongly!