I think that overall this is a good point, but I've seen many people who make their living doing hard science who, once they open their mouths, start putting their personal credibility where it does not yet belong.

Although I don't do it for a living, I'm dedicated to science and it's progress and I have a real love for both the process and the results. But I'm afraid that one of the biggest factors that has made science vulnerable to inroads by fundamentalists is that scientists have, of late, embrace three (admittedly hastily constructed) levels of credibility on scientific subjects:

1) We very strongly believe this is true because it has been repeatedly verified through controlled experimentation.

2) We very strongly believe this is true because it can be strongly inferred from existing verified data.

3) We understand that we don't have all the facts, but we are critical thinkers for a living and our theories are worthier than your theories.

Number 1 is where scientists should be, but in debates, articles, and various other discussions on the battle between religion a science I have seen prominent and credible scientists arguing 2 and sadly, much more often 3. I understand it, but many scientist should reign themselves in.

Understand, I'm not saying don't fight, just that we should fight from our position of greatest strength, which is being "fundamentalist" about the scientific method. If we can teach kids, or anyone, how it works and why we're devoted to it, all the while showing by example how to be scientific in thought, then we win. There's plenty of room for religion in the world even with hard science, and there's plenty of amazement and wonder to be had in science too. I just don't want to see scientists try to expand their own role in human exploration way beyond the data.