You claim that this debate cannot be resolved because of the inherently contradictory world views of the two camps. While I agree that this contradiction exists, it doesn't make the debate insoluble. The problem with your assessment of the situation is that the debate is not about two different world views, as you claim it is. The debate is actually about science, with the religious adherents trying to play on the field of science using the rules that apply to religion.
The E v C debate doesn't revolve around the question of which should be taught, science or religion. The debate is about what should be taught in science class. If all that creos maintained was that religion is better at arriving at ultimate truths than science, but conceded that science shows that life evolved, science would be quite happy. Instead, we see creos raping the rules of science in an ill-fated attempt to convince others that science actually supports what they believe based on faith. This is the true nature of the debate. This debate is easily solved, by religion conceding that the conclusions of science contradict the conclusions of religion. However, as long as creos insist on the right to play in science's sandbox but without being required to abide by science's rules, science will fight back.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
