Thanks for the appreciation, persephone and dag. I personally see two kinds of people, inside or outside of religion. One is interested in what the other party has to say and tries to get the best out of it, while the other has a conviction to defend adamantly without appreciating the other or opposing view. I try to belong to the former type, and I hope to speak on behalf of others in my "circles" who also see it this way.

I am a Catholic priest and would like to chime in on this one.
1. I accept the scientific method of relying on material evidence and on the idea that a series of tests often lead to a valid conclusion. I also accept that (this positive) science and theology are two different fields and should not be confused. Yet when it comes to ask questions about the meaning of life and our purpose of being, those who are involved in science make a significant step further and leave their own methodology, since those areas do not have a recourse to material evidence. Therefore the initial choice of trusting science only or atheism is casting one's votes for another kind of belief. Of course that does not necessarily mean an organised religion, but it is possible to develop into one, i.e. the practices of cold war Socialist countries or the then officially atheist Albania that often were highly liturgical. If one believes in scientific methodology as meaningful for one's existence, that's o.k. But it is a belief, and that's where it will have to face other belief systems.
2. Regarding evolution, it's too bad that Dawkin switched over to our evangelical brethren and, after treating the issue of Catholic Lourdes, did not go on analysing the Catholic position on evolution. Here is a quote from Pope Pius XII: "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Humani Generis 36).
3. This Pope was indeed mentioned by Dawking regarding the latest dogma of Assumption. The Pope did not sit alone and think of himself that this should become a dogma. That's an accusation on Dawking's part that I find very offensive. What the Pope did was a serious study of the long history of Christians believing in Assumption and found it reasonable to promulgate it. In fact I have found articles of Orthodox Christians in which they criticised the promulgation as unnecessary, as it had alway been present in their theology, liturgy and iconography. It was exactly this long presence of the idea of Assumption that made the Pope reflect. He did not make it up.
4. I do recognise that religious people, Christians and Catholics too, have had a significant role in instigating wars and hatred. And I am sorry for that, since I am part of their circle, the church. And I know that being sorry does not heal the wounds religious individuals and groups inside the church or other churched have inflicted. But I remain with this church believing in and being witness of the desire in many to reflect and revise their attitude, even in the presence of others who stick to their unhealthy approach. The church is a very complex group of much wisdom and stupidity intermingling. I choose to work with the wisdom part.
5. From the bottom of my heart I love atheists. I love how they promote frankness. Their denial of God's existence makes me feel humble about our truths. They shake us, religious people, up from our intellectual and indeed spiritual-theological slumbers, and I do not even mind if they promote a little agenda of presenting facts or views that would underlie their belief and miss out on others that would not, - as shown above.
6. I have in mind many other priest colleagues who would by and large share these views. Cheers, and keep up the good work!