Ah, right that makes more sense. I guess though it's still not clear that it really makes much difference. Like even when the intelligent design people acknowledge that plant breeding exists, but claim "macroevolution" is impossible or whatever, does that even matter? If you're not going to be a geneticist, it's basically just trivia.
The reason creationists push so hard against the teaching of evolution is that it fundamentally discredits their entire theology. It’s not just about the origin story.
If there wasn’t a literal Adam and Eve, then Adam and Eve never sinned by eating fruit from the wrong tree, and thus they never passed that sin down to all of humanity, meaning we aren’t all born with “original sin” for which we need to be forgiven and saved from being sent to hell when we die.
Nothing about Evolution disproves Adam and Eve. If an all powerful person is in the story, it's a theological and metaphysical question how Evolution and Creation fit together.
It's also kind of a boring question because there's no experiment we could run to explain how creation miracles worked. It's definitely a fountain of controversy, though.
What I mean is things like plant breeding and genetics ("microevolution") have practical uses, and modern anti-evolutionists shifted to acknowledge it because it's so easy to demonstrate. Knowing how we came to be ("macroevolution") doesn't have practical uses. Tautologically, it happens on time scales far beyond our lifespans.
Almost everyone isn't going to do a deep dive into how it all works/become professionals in that area, so even the science is effectively just a story for them. If parents want to tell their kids a different story, it doesn't really matter much. Public school k-12 science is so basic that as has been said elsewhere in the comments, you can learn it all from Wikipedia in a few days anyway. The important topics are reading, writing, and math/logic. Ideally history and political philosophy, but it's not clear that schools meaningfully teach that anyway.
