It has long been stated that 'creation' or design were not antithetical to Darwin's observations on diversity in species or within species.
The debate,as such, now centers on the most dearly held and least supported tenants of both:
Can Darwin show how "Life" came to be on earth? (no)
and
Can "not darwin" show otherwise? (no)
Problem is that one side (evolutionists) are overstating their license and the other (other) are lumping an entire concept into one pivotal element of their argument against the (neo-darwinist?) position.
No one is going to make progress until both figure out what it is that they are discussing.
My problem is that I sincerely believe that the Darwinist side has more of an agenda than does the 'other'.
The Darwinists believe, deep in their hearts, that any loss is a defeat in the larger issue - and in that they are far more the arrogant, ignorant, 'sheeple' of the issue.
I may well have descended from a monkey - I do not believe I an descended from a 'primordal soup' or a chance melding of atoms, or a happily random mix of planet, ooze, and lightening strikes.
If the religious fanatics want to put God into science, then, they should return the favor and put God to the scientific test. Nevermind. They have tried and they always failed.