The two camps often overlap, and there are supporters of each who are quite fair-minded and reasonable as well as some others are considerably less so. I also agree that Christian Fundamentalists deserve credit for being open about their fundamentalism, and I would give that same respect to a Daniel Dennett, who is equally open about his. Those who would dispute that there are fundamentalists in science as well as religion should take note of Dennett's words about himself and his close friend and associate, Richard Dawkins:
And I also thought, on rereading the book, that the late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist.
And Dawkins insists, and I agree wholeheartedly, that there aren't any good compromise positions. Many have tried to find a compromise position, which salvages something of the traditional right-side-up view, where meaning and purpose rain down from on high. It cannot be done. And the recognition that it cannot be done is I would say, the mark of sane Darwinian fundamentalism.