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.
So you would stick to listing observations, and eliminate constructs like Newton's laws, because they do not fit all the observations?