Creation vs Evolution

There is not what I would call a debate on this subject. It seems that it would be more a war of attrition. Keep sending the same message and wait for the other to die or accept the others viewpoint.
The creationists have no real data to back the claim of divine creation, just a book and their faith laid out for all is to convince us that we are chosen by a divine being to watch over the earth and it's creatures.
The point that they make is this....we were put here on earth complete as homo sapiens, no evolution occurred, we did not come from a simpler species and developed to the grand animal that we now are.
The evolutionists are of course convinced that as a species we developed from a lower order and now here we are the dominant biped. They have what seems clearly to be irrefutable evidence of evolution with some gaps in the data when applied to us humans.
My thoughts are this:
One is that proving one or the other as correct has little bearing on our immediate physical being. IE proving one or the other will not stop nor accelerate the development in physical terms of the human species.
I have a feeling that the answer to the question of where did we come from affects more the human endeavor than the human species.
Remember that religion is a human construct that is made "holy" by words put to page by man and said to be divine by the word of a man. Of course the folks steeped in religion tell us that the Bible is the word of a divine being and I think this is truly possible. The religion wants you to have faith in this concept of divinity. It is too bad that we humans tend to humanize things in order to relate to them.
We have words which create images and so it is difficult to really communicate pure thought. We have baggage attached to words and this is detrimental to the future of the species.
That is a topic better suited to discussion by itself.
Science is a human construct that explains our existence through the analysis of data. Assumptions are made based on that data. It also asks for faith from it's followers that the assumptions are correct so then the conclusion will also be the same.
Neither side of this spiritual/scientific dichotomy will provide the answer, both are integral in the answer of the big questions, Where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going.
The questions of course are the past present and future. Hmmm we like that clean sequential order. The idea that one thing comes before the other, very tidy very organized and predictable but this cosmos is anything but that. The mechanics are to a large degree predictable but the physics not so much.
So if these two groups cannot prove anything conclusively then a myriad of other possibilities could be possible in regards to how it is that we came to be on this planet at that time and came to the advances that we have.
I am not going to put forward any alternate scenario right here instead I will let your imaginations run wild but I will say this.
This debate is largely a waste of energy and time.We need both science and spirituality in order to get to the next stage of humanities enterprise. We cannot be blinded by emotion and instead realise that we are all a microcosmic part of this cosmos and we for some reason have an effect on it that is larger than the sum of our parts.
In the end analysis I feel that we have to combine spirituality and science one is of the other. To try and separate the physical world and the spiritual world is folly they coexist and in terms of ranking in importance science may be a little behind, science in general and the fringe of physics specifically will explain why we need to become transcendental and truly connect with the cosmos.