Why do they say its hard to teach evolution to creationists?

Simply, Creationism doesn't follow the same rules as science does.

Evolution a conclusion based on evidence, while Creationism has started with the conclusion and cherry picked the evidence that supports it (and ignores the evidence that refutes it).

Findings in evolution are peer-reviewed and released to scientists who can scrutinize their findings, while Creationism is preached directly to the public with no peer review.

Different aspects of evolution are continually debated between scientists, while in general, Creationists viciously attack anyone proposing a different idea.

When an aspect of evolution is disproved it is left behind (like any obsolete science, like geocentricicism, spontaneous generation, and phlogiston), whereas Creationist arguments are almost always the same old tired, long-since disproved examples.

Finally, evolution, like any science, depends on tight consistent definitions and unambiguous statements, while Creationism is mired in poorly-defined terms (like "kinds" of animals) and inconsistency (many of the arguments are contingent on changes in the fundamental constants of the universe, like the speed of light and radioactive decay).

Creationism doesn't follow the same rules as science, but it attempts to demand equal respect and weight. While it's fine as a religious, philosophical, or personal belief, it's based in just that - belief and not observed evidence. Not to Godwin the question, here, but it really is like the clash between historians (and most sensible people) and Holocaust deniers. The deniers will never change their beliefs, because they are at the core, while historians (like scientists) hold evidence as their core and build conclusions up from there. The only difference is that Holocaust deniers are relatively few in number compared to Creationists... but again it comes down to the evidence. Holocaust deniers aren't wrong because there aren't many of them, it's because the evidence doesn't support their stance. Likewise, no matter how many Creationists there are, that won't make them right - unless, of course, they find real evidence.

The fundamental problem is that creationism is based on biblical genesis which was written before the invention of science thousands of years later. Science is based on observation and theories that explain those observations. Religion is based on faith, which is not based on observations and which cannot be changed by new information.

I can put it in very simple terms. On my bookshelves is an Oxford Annotated Bible that I was required to use in college. The book is approximately two inches thick. Surrounding it is about a hundred feet of shelf space containing science books, all of which are based on information that came along after the religious text. Pray tell, how can a few pages of a religious text, particularly Genesis, be a more accurate description of the physical universe than my textbooks on biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology and other sciences? It can't.

Pokemon strengthen into created with the aid of a creationist writer. My brother under no circumstances found out approximately evolution, and strengthen into in a complicated non secular ecosystem, yet he believes in evolution, by way of fact of pokemon. He is conscious it doesnt take place that way, yet its a extraordinarily easy way of clarify how evolution works, a pikachu wont ever evolve right into a squirtle.

As a world-renowned award-winning Creationist, I can tell you most plainly that I know about evolution. You can teach evolution to Creationists. Getting them to believe it... well, that's another story.

Because it is. Why is it? Because theism, by it's very nature, is irrefutable and not based in logic. When science disagrees with a religious account of an event, a theist will discard the scientific idea because, in their mind, the religious idea is fact, and anything which goes against it must be false. This is, of course, highly illogical -- that is, to continue to hold a belief when evidence provides a better option.

Creationists do not agree with the time frame of evolution. In Genesis, it says that the earth was created in seven days. According to evolution, this process took millions of years to occur, meaning the diversity of plant and animal life on earth.

Evolution also states that man was created by chance when certain chemicals happened to be in the right place at the right time. Genesis also says that God made man out of dust and breathed life into him and woman was made out of man's rib.

Many creationists have grown up with this teaching, and it does seem to make more sense than life from a pool of chemicals.

If you have any more questions, I would highly suggest looking at AnswersInGenesis.com. It explains the entire creationist viewpoint on many subject matters.

Because, like so many other people, creationists hold strongly to their beliefs and they feel there is no room for any other theory or to open their mind to the idea that something other than what they believed happened. I personally believe there is room for both theories. There were no cameras in the time of Adam and Eve, who is to say that the men and women of that time looked like the men and women of today? Perhaps they were more cromagnon like. Darwin did not say man came from apes he said man evolved from an apelike creature, perhaps that creature was a man than just looked more ape-like, who is to say.

It is always difficult and nigh unto impossible to teach somebody anything when that person has a closed mind.