The reason is quite simply Creationism is a religious belief, whereas Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. Religious beliefs have no
place in public schools.
Newton's, Einstein's, and Darwin's quotes about God and religion are irrelevant. Their comments are not science, and have no place in a scientific
discussion. I'll listen to what Newton or Einstein have to say about physics, or what Darwin has to say about biology. But when it comes to
theology, they are out of their fields. Incidentally, Newton also spoke highly of alchemy and even astrology.
But let's say that religious beliefs should be taught in schools. OK, you've got the Judaeo-Christian Genesis story. But then you've got the
Creation stories of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, the Australian Aboriginal peoples, Native American peoples, many different groups in Africa, and so
on. If you want to teach one, you really should teach them all.
The so-called "persecution" of Creationists exists, in the sense that those who express unpopular views find that they have trouble getting funding.
This has always been true among the scientific community. It is not a new phenomenon. Isaac Asimov, respected a scientist, had to write science
fiction stories under a pseudonym, lest he be thrown out of the field he was in. Many scientists whose works we now accept and admire, died in
poverty and obscurity, simply because their ideas were too different from what the current thinking was. This is still happening, and yes,
Creationists suffer as much as anyone else for being different. But not more.
Charles Darwin had a problem with the notion of God presiding over Nature. So much of Nature is cruel and horrific, that he had a hard time
reconciling that with an almighty, loving God. He said,
"I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do,
evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars,
or that a cat should play with mice."
.
Those "Ichneumonidae" Darwin referred to are the ichneumon wasps. They sting a caterpillar to paralyze, but not kill it, then lay their eggs
inside. The caterpillar remains unable to move but alive as these eggs hatch and consume the poor creature from the inside out. This doesn't mean
he didn't believe in God, but it does suggest that he didn't believe God was directly responsible for all of Nature's cruelty.
Finally, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with Creationism or Creation. It doesn't address the issue of how life began. It discusses
evolution, not creation. To criticize Darwin's theory for not answering a question beyonds its topic is useless. It's similar to challenging
Newton's theory, because he doesn't explain how the Universe was formed. You don't challenge his theory on the basis that Newton fails to explain
how matter came into being in the first place. He's talking about how matter behaves now, not how it originally got here. Similarly, Darwin
discusses how species behave now, not how life was created.