Generally speaking, scepticists make claims that are much more humble than they are accused of, but they are depicted as radicals exactly because humility seems scary.
When Galileo was called to recant his defence to Copernican cosmological model, he was perfectly comfortable with calling it merely a calculation tool or short-cut. He was, like, geez I am not telling you I saw how the universe was made, I am just telling you what I saw through this telescope thing — if you know what GOD did… better for you, I am only talking about my own experience here.
In the same way, when scientists say that progressive evolution is a better bet than instantaneous creation, they are humbly talking about some stones they found with those cool fossilized remains. They are not talking about GOD. Humble.
Of course, Dawkins and the like are not humble, but they are not scientists either. They seem to think that becoming those rabid priests of a scientificaloid church will do some good for our world. Not humble… But, you know, they have their right to be fanatics, there is probably something about that in the american constitution somewhere.
So, about being humble. I just happen to believe it is cool. If you can consider with equanimity even the more whako ideas — what can i say? Friggin cool!
Now, between someone who is rabid about ideas contrary to theirs and someone who is not rabid about ideas at all, even if on average close to theirs, people tend to be scared about the non-rabid guy. The humble guy scares more.
The reason is simple, though: humility of ideas is less predictable.