Galileo, Wilberforce, and Scopes/'Inherit the Wind'

Stories stay in the minds of the majority long after facts associated to particular theories do. My question is this, in light of the way in which popular culture perceives three historical happenings (Galileo's Relations with the Church/ the Wilberforce-Huxley debate/the Scopes trial immortalized unintentionally through the film 'Inherit the Wind') I wonder if I might ask you what implications this has on the philosophy of science, and why this artificially created war between science and religion is allowed to continue.1. What benefits are there, in removing Galileo from his context, and promoting him as occupying the sunlit high ground of reason, in stark contrast to the backward religious authorities?
2. What point is there is making Wilberforce look to be a complete and utter buffon, when even contemporary men of though (Stephen J. Gould) have suggested that Wilberforce may actually have won that debate?
3. And why immortalize the memory of the Scopes trial as presented through the play 'Inherit the Wind.'In each of these cases, a revisionist history is at play, and I wonder why people from both sides stand for it.

Inherit the Wind was a piece of crap. Every time I see it, I cringe at the bias and over-the-top portrayal of the creationists and their lawyer. I`m sure they feel they were shown as ignorant red-necks (even if they were ignorant red-necks), and their food-guzzling,pompous lawyer as a figure all audiences would take a dislike to. A film made on the merits of opposing beliefs instead of caricatures would have set better with this atheist. If this was an influence to changing education in the Southern States,it must have struck a chord that escapes me.Re the Wilberforce affair. There`s a website I can`t recall offhand that expands the recording of the Wilberforce meeting, showing the usual quote to be a case of selective reporting. I`ll look for it. Edited by Nighttrain, : Extra thoughts