[Ichneumon]

Even today it is a rare textbook or any popular treatment of evolution and religion that does not reduce "creationism" to the simplest caricatures.

No need, they pretty much make caricatures of themselves:

For modern examples, check out the goofiness of Gish, Hovind, Baugh, and so on.

And of course, creationists never reduce evolution to the simplest caricatures, do they? </sarcasm>

[Rippin]

And of course, creationists never reduce evolution to the simplest caricatures, do they?

Yep, they do. There's more straw men in this "field" of discussion than in any I know. I'll even grant MOST creationists over-simplify evolution, don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, get all tripped up over the nature of scientific "theories" v. scientific facts, can't grasp the difference between "random chance" and chance etc.

But most evolutionists over-state the strength of evolution as a theory, fail to honestly articulate their own assumptions, attack the credentials of their opponents rather than the arguments, retreat to triumphalism when shallow critiques of their opponents get posted on websites etc.

Someday, I think an honest discussion will emerge, but it will be a few years off yet.