See I didn't grow up thinking creationism and evolution are necessarily contrary to each other (they're kinda different spheres of thought) so maybe that's why I don't see why protecting science textbooks requires abrogating everyone's faith. I mean the Catholic church is happy to believe in evolution too right, so there's something very American about this particular strand of young earth "men rode on dinosaurs" creationism
Intelligent design got very forceful pushback when they were putting it .. man it's been a while which school board was it.. even overruled by a court. The 10 commandments in front of a court fiasco was another example of strong pushback. Keeping science focused on evidence and maintaining the first amendment separation of church/state has broad support in the country. Especially cause there are multiple faiths and sects so in the end you can't pick which version (jewish? christian? jehovah's witness?) to be pushing.
If keeping evolution out of textbooks requires on the other hand attacking the faith of everyone in such a coalition you're creating a very small group of hardcore empiricists vs everyone else
Now a new atheist might say, well, if that's what's required we'll start a small movement and grow it. My other point there was that there's really no such thing as a pure Reason-based philosophy. Social behavior is eventually judgement based and arbitrary. Take religion out of the picture (as it is in most of the discussions people have on contentious matters) and you still have the same types of beefs and human behaviors remaining
My bigger beef with them of course is their ventures into transnational social commentary. They're just not qualified or understand what goes on in world societies. And so even if you're an uncompromising atheist the fact that you're a white british male can create blind spots. To wit, something I read a few minutes ago on here: