It's really not such a difficult question, in itself at least. To answer it, I think you need to know a bit more about history than you do about creation or evolution. And since this is a World History assignment I suspect your teacher is not expecting you to turn in a scientific or theological research paper.
The evc debate is simply the latest permutation of the science vs. religion debate that's been going on for centuries, quite intensely since the enlightenment.
Creation is religion, evolution is science. Creation is a belief in something that cannot be observed and in many cases contradicts what can be observed, while science is what can be observed, along with conclusions drawn from what is observed. In other words, creation (at least in the context of the evc debate) is a set of beliefs about biology held in spite of evidence while evolution is an aknowledgement of biological evidence and a set of scientific assumptions based on that evidence. Thus, religion vs. science.
This issue at the root of the religion vs. science debate changes from time to time. It used to be over the structure of the solar system and whether the planets circled the sun or the earth. Now it's over evolution. In a few years it will probably be over something else, like Big Bang.
quote:For your paper I might compare the current debate between creationism and evolution with the previous debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism. This debate happened many years ago between science (ie Galileo) and religion (ie The Inquisition). It has a lot of similarities with the debate between science and religion today.
I agree, and rather than just compare them I think the evc debate could be presented as simply one more iteration of the age-old religion vs. science debate. The issues of that debate change over time, but the essential question is always one of faith vs. evidence.