While i wont deny there have been flare ups from both sides, the scientific side has a stronger position because they use evidence and reason not mythology and faith
Firstly, it really isn't a case of there being a 'religious side' and a 'scientific side'; religion and science are perfectly compatible. There are many scientists who are religious. Secondly, your understanding of religion and how it is justified is actually quite mistaken. It simply isn't the case that it's all about mythology and such. Of course it's faith, but believing in anything is faith. It isn't blind faith, it is - or should be - well-informed, educated faith. Have you actually opened a single book of religious apologetics? I suggest you try, and you will find that it really isn't a case of "you just have to have FAITH". I won't deny that there are those who think like that, but I believe they're in the minority.
Religion feels it has the answer already and doesn't question it.
Again, simply not true. It does happen, but it isn't always the case. If nothing were ever questioned in religion, there would be no development, no deepening of understanding, no need for apologetics.
I do wonder how modern christians for example can pick and choose what they believe out of the bible, surely if it truly is the word of God which is what your told it is
It isn't a case of 'picking and choosing' it's a case of the Bible needing interpretation. It would be naive to suggest that all of the Bible was ever meant to be historical fact. It just wasn't. There are many different genres in the Bible and you need to be aware of that before you start saying "oh look! This can't be literally true, I just disproved Christianity (and presumably Judaism)". Take the creation story of Genesis, for example, since you've already mentioned it. Most Christians and Jews wouldn't even think of suggesting that it's literally true, or that it was ever intended to be. The people who came up with it didn't know what the origin of the universe was like, how could they? It was simply the Hebrew creation story, most likely in response to other creation stories, like the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish. And yes, it would have drawn on other sources in order to explain what it was supposed to. Namely, that one God created everything out of nothing. Some of the Bible - particularly the Old Testament - is mythology. That doesn't mean it's a load of nonsense; it's a perfectly valid way of explaining some kind of truth. It's only when you try to take it literally that problems arise.
I'm not trying to convert you here; I just wanted to point out that it is not a case of religion vs. science. And fundamentalist evangelical types scare me.