I don't think Dawkins is any more "aggressive" when arguing about religion than people are when arguing about anything else, really. People have a really thin skin about religion, and interpret what would be normal debate in other contexts, as intemperate attacks. I think that some of the neo-atheists err in simply deciding that this is illegitimate, and going about their business. I think they'd be more effective at changing people's minds if they took a gentler, more socratic approach. It's fun to just hurl invective and present devastating arguments one after the other once and a while, but if people decide that you're too mean they just shut down and won't listen to your arguments, however good they are.
Also, the whole "brights" thing makes me want to puke.
If you want a more philosophically-grounded exposition of Darwinian ideas, I highly recommend Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Dennet, Pinker, and Dawkins are definitely something of a mutual appreciation society, however.