I think if you are on the side of science or the side of creationism, you will think this phrasing is biased.  However, if you treat it like a description of two fighters in a bout in which you have no stake, it's unclear to me which side it is biased towards.  Of course I am biased, I wrote it (but was influenced by Numbers and Larson).  I think I summarized NPOV sources in writing it, as well as the article, using the language of the ostensibly NPOV sources, historians, who use phrasing that ticks off both sides (e.g., "co-opting of creationist label" and "evangelizing for Darwinism").  I say unless you can demonstrate that Larson and Numbers are partisans to the debate, that the phrasing is prima facie NPOV, and you have a tough sell ahead of you.