Well it would be good if you could have another look at those statistics, please. The reason why I bring this up is: subtle differences.

From what I remember that statistic was based around the question. Did God created Heaven and Earth? Now if you answer this question with YES, you are by no means necessarily a Science denyer that believes the earth is only created 6000 years ago. Therefore skewing your whole argument right there at the start.

I say that sentence every Sunday and there will be lots of other people including scientists that have the same understanding and ability to distinguish between an article of faith and scientific research.

When I say: God created Heaven and Earth. It does not mean he opened a box and pulled out the parts or some such ex nihilo action. It means, that as a person of faith, God has given me responsibility to look after Heaven and Earth. It is his work, which he has entrusted us/ me to look after. That is of course only the beginning.
That is the consequence of his creation act. It does not say anything about his box of tricks or how that happened. As a person of faith, I leave the answer to that questions to the experts. The how is irrelevant for a Theologian, and only hers (the Thologicans) interest in the world, might make her examen this.

Equally irrelevant is the question of the existence of God. In my seven years at University I never once had a discussion about if God existed or not: We discussed God's death, Negative Theology, Christianity without a Christian God; We discussed historical arguments about God's existance, Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and more modern ones like C.S. Peirce.
We discussed, why some people are calling themselves Atheists, how many they were, what motivated them and some such.
The question, if God existed was not a matter of material relevance. The consequence of the answer to the question was however (negative or positive), it is of great interest and the only interesting really.

"Ingolf U. Dalferth:
In religious ... discourse the term `god' normally functions not as a concept but as an indexical which introduces a comprehensive scheme of orientation in terms of which believers understand and interpret the world and their particular place in it."

This is then where I come back to Dawkin. It is exactly the ignorance about this simple fact, that eludes him and why he talks past people that are interested in Science and his arguments on Evolution and are people of faith at the same time.

(Christian) Religion and its hierarchie is being used to manipulate, alienate, disenfranchise. Of course, as the Catholic Church would be the first to admit: We are all sinners. (Ratzi asking all the Church to pray for paedophile Priests).

But what is often not considered, that a rejection of organised mass Religion, does not necessarily leads to a enlightened, science based life. Why should it. Science in its idealist, abstract notion of right and wrong, either - or does have a hard time to come to terms with human nature, difficult moral choices, grey behaviour (as have fundamentalist statements in general).
Sure, church might offer overtly simplistic answers to hugely complex matters, and might subsequently be wrong about things as well - on a pastoral level, these loud proclamations usually look very different however. (As seen by huge inner-catholic, inner-orthodox,... inner-muslim protest against these outrageous abuse of power by church leaders - Catholic Abortion Advice Centres that continues to be part of the Abortion administration process in Germany, f.e.
Again, these questions are not answered in black or white, but on a specific individual level.)