The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate

You mean that material realities have been ingrained into our minds since the time we were born? The wild assumption that if we bump into something solid, it's there?Here's one dictionary definition of science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.Apart from the working assumption that observable material reality exists, something all people are obliged to assume on a practical day to day basis, what other assumptions does science require? Surely, at this point, you can start observing and experimenting while saying "We know nothing about the universe, other than it appears to exist, let's see if it's possible to find out anything about it."I think you're bringing in too much high philosophy into the equation.The EvC debate is a bit like the six year old kid telling his five year old brother that Santa Claus doesn't bring the presents down the chimney, it's Dad who brings them. The six year old has to assume the reality he's observed in the middle of the night is not an illusion, but nothing more. The five year old is living in a fantasy world he desires, and is frightened to leave it.

There isn't a religious view of origins. There are hundreds, if not thousands. New ones are being invented all the time. Pick out any creation mythology at random, and it would be naive to perceive it as anything other than a naive human invention.I'm not dismissing out of hand the possibility that the real universe may have come into existence with intent, but creationism is about non-existent universes, universes of the mind.If your O.P. is suggesting that there will always be creationism, history is not on your side. Few Europeans believed that they descended from other animals a century ago, but a majority now do.Evolution becomes easier and easier to argue as time goes on. Because it happens and has happened, the evidence inevitably increases as science progresses.The argument that you mention about the laws of the universe having been different in the past is just a symptom of the beginning of the end. It's "we haven't got any evidence, so we'll aim for neutral".The trouble is that for such a change to have influenced the history of our species, by definition, there would have to be evidence for it.If you're saying that many creationists will always be able to convince themselves that their views are true, I agree. But the likelihood of most of their great grand children sharing those beliefs is slim.For those who need religion, there are religious interpretations that are not and can probably never be incompatible with science. It's only these that can survive in the long term.

Does your new found "philosophy" tell you that the flat earth society is not necessarily wrong? If so, it sounds like the kind of philosophy that you could easily put to test by jumping in front of a bus to prove that the view that the bus is not really there has some merit. After all, the view that the bus is there and the view that it isn't ultimately rely on assumptions, as you point out in the O.P.