[whattajoke]

As the given discipline runs its course making use of scientific methods, I might introduce questions that allow the student to explain their observations in both naturalist and creationist terms, or whichever they might prefer.

Man, I wish you were my physics professor in college! "But Professor Chugabrew, what I really meant was..." Or better yet, my dad after that course was graded, "But Daddy Chugabrew, that 'D' stands for "Delightful!"

All kidding aside, I assure you, the scientific community would be happy to allow for creationist theories once they get past that fickle peer review process. And I also assure you, when that is done, fame, fortune, and nobel prizes await the one who does it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Man, I wish you were my physics professor in college! "But Professor Chugabrew, what I really meant was...""

Ha! The tests on my exams would tend to avoid the creation vs. evolution issue and stick to the observed facts within the discipline. As for a more thorough treatment of further assumptions and conclusions to be drawn from those facts, they do indeed belong under the discipline of "Philosophy of Science."

"Or better yet, my dad after that course was graded, 'But Daddy Chugabrew, that 'D' stands for 'Delightful!'"

I suppose it could have been predicted that an adherent of evolutionist presuppositions would try to weasel his ass out of a jam with semantic chicanery. Studies may one day result in the Theory of Evolutionist Fourberie gaining wide acceptance.

Does the introduction of some form of creationist thought automatically result in the need to launch off into all kinds of creation theories? Of course not. Those who know how to indulge in educational pursuits also know how to put the reins on implications arising from the same.