Re: Why try to 'convince' creationists?
> Your own post is evidence that you're someone who "simply want to believe instead of knowing." and someone who will remain ignorance.
How ironic can you get ?
> (what, you think Darwin was the first?).
A common mistake, usually by creationists, is to claim that Darwin wrote a 'theory of evolution'. He did not. Evolution was well accepted as a process for decades before Darwin. His theory was about _how_ evolution occurred, or at least about how one part of it occurred. Other theories about the process preceded Darwin, such as Lamarck's. Other mechanisms include 'sexual selection'.
> We will finally be rid of this stupid organised religion called "evolution"
Evolution is a process that is observable. It is observable in the universe, it is observable in the fossil record, it is observable in this experiment. You probably equate "this stupid organised religion" with 'Darwinism' or even 'Neo-Darwinism' which is a discussion about how some of the processes operate. You are perfectly welcome to argue that 'selection is not natural' as long as you can bring some actual evidence. You can also argue that 'humans do not have a common ancestor with other monkeys' but you would have to show why all the evidence for this is wrong.
> I would love to see more critical thinking taught in schools
You might like to try some of this yourself. Religion is not just 'Christian (creationism)' versus 'Neo-Darwinism'. There are thousands of different religions, and many variations within each of those. It is instructive to study a few of them and to contemplate their origins. For example Rastarianism (which I studied because my grandfather had been presented with a Lion Skin Cape in 1922 by Ras Tafari). This originated as a black power movement in the Caribbean after the English abolished slavery and the plantations had to import indentured Indians (mostly Hindu) as workers. It is a mix of Voodoo from the African ex-slaves, local West Indies native religions, imposed Christianity and various Hindu imports, such as hemp.
The study of the formation of religions should show, through the application of _actual_ 'critical thinking', rather than merely being critical, that they are a human mechanism designed to impose the will of the leader(s) upon the society they wish to create and/or rule over. In some sense the societies have evolved due to the religions. Those not belonging to the majority religion, or the most aggressive religion, in a society were 'selected away*' by banishment, persecution, wars, or genocide. This created cohesive cultures which could be classed as 'civilisation', but generally was not 'civil'.
Human thought has also evolved in many places, where we were able to avoid being persecuted by the various religions. The religions are still fighting back against this evolving of thought into science, they still want their dogma to rule.
> That God made everything in a relatively recent time frame has come out on top again and again for me,
And that puts you in the same class as the flat-earthers and alchemists.
* the basis of Darwin is not so much 'selection of the fittest', but its corollary: de-selection of the less fit, or of those that couldn't escape from the fittest.