Good question. I will be glad to discuss it at some length if you care to.
First of all I will concede that zealots on both sides tend to make extreme statements. There are militant atheists in the evolution side, and there are creationists who use this fact to tar all evolutionists as Marxists, Nazis, atheists, etc.
Second I will acknowledge that there are well educated people who doubt evolution for various reasons. Some doubt the fact of common descent, and some accept common descent but deny that natural selection is sufficient to explain anything more than small adaptations.
Here is what I'm afraid of: the attempt by those outside the mainstream of science to change what science is and what science does.
Evolution is just the latest of a long procession of bogeymen that have been attacked in the name of religion. At the time Vesuvius erupted and destroyed Pompeii, such events were considered to be caused by the wrath of God, or gods as the case may be. The same for earthquakes, disease, storms, etc. It has only been in recent centuries that many people have come to believe these are natural phenomena. I would hesitate to say that even now a majority of people believe all disasters are natural phenomena.
Science has a history going back several centuries of fighting against the assumption that ordinary events require supernatural explanations.
Somewhere around 1700, Christianity adopted the idea that the order in nature was a sign of God's design. Science then became the study of God's design. This worked well until geology and paleontology began unearthing evidence of an earth much older and complex than what was described in Genesis.
First there were fossil remains of creatures never seen. The idea took hold that these bones were the remains of a God directed evolution. It was noticed that fossils associated with lower strata were smaller and less complex than those in higher strata. It was decided that these represented earlier creations, before God created man. The word evolution was first attached to this directed sequence of creation. the term applied to this idea was Natural Theology, the title of a famous book by the Rev. Paley, published in 1802. In this book, Paley outlined the complete argument for intelligent design, including many of the terms, such as irreducible complexity.
There really wasn't much of a philosophical difference between science an religion until science began to explain life as a natural process. It is true that some religious people have always objected to an earth much older than thousands of years, but most people consider the age of the earth a matter of biblical interpretation rather than an article of faith.
As long as science restricted itself to admiring the intricate structure of the cosmos, or the mathematical workings of inorganic chemistry, things were cool. But when biologists rejected vitalism, the notion that life involved something other than chemistry, things began to heat up.
I believe there are areas that cannot easily be reconciled. For one thing, science is the way of acquiring knowledge about the world. It has, in its very core, the assumption that worldly things obey regular laws that can be analyzed and discovered. Science does not distinguish between organic and inorganic. It does not hold any beliefs, even its own, as sacred. If the testimony of witnesses contradicts what can be established by instruments, the witnesses are discarded.
You ask what I am afraid of. I am afraid that the early faith in the essential compatibility of religion and science is being abandoned because science cannot support the opinions and interpretations of some believers. The problem is not with science, which has the same assumptions it had in 1802, a belief in the orderly workings of nature. The problem is with people who do not accept where belief in order leads. they wish to go back to a time when all things were products of a whimsical God, and divine intervention was an everyday occurrence. they wish to make intervention the primary assumption.
But science, makes the opposite assumption.
I would think any true Christian would not be afraid that science would discover something contrary to God. I welcome investigations into why things are and how they work. To me it just proves God knows way more than we do. For those Christians who are afraid, I would say they need to pray for faith. On the other hand, I believe some scientists (atheists) enjoy trying to prove God was not responsible for anything in the universe and that we are all here by random chance. Humans are spiritual beings and to deny that is to deny their humanity. Both religion and science should work at seeking truth, wherever it takes them.