[Dataman]

You will be penalized for citing anti-evolutionary material. It is not science. If the thesis of your paper is anti-evolutionary (akin to arguing against the germ theory of disease or against the atomic theory of matter) you will receive a failing grade.

Thanks for posting that item. It is obvious that the evos grow tired of losing the debate since they now prohibit it.

In college level courses like philosophy, the students are exposed to many contradictory philosophies. The poorer ones are explained and then discredited. The same with history, political science and other courses. Only the theoretical evos try to exempt themselves from criticism.

There is and can be only one reason for this: Evolution cannot withstand scrutiny.

[ContentiousObjector]

Handing in a project on creationism in a biology class is akin to handing in an essay on alchemy in chemistry or handing in a playboy centerfold stapled to an empty pizza box as you English PhD thesis.

Your ability to regurgitate creationist excrement does not reflect in any way on your performance in a biology course.

[Heartlander]

I agree…
It is unfortunate that, as you said, “In college level courses like philosophy, the students are exposed to many contradictory philosophies.”. But in science they are exposed to only one philosophy:

“Douglas Futuyma's text (Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition) he writes: "By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

" Purvis, Orians and Heller, (in Life: The Science of Biology, 4th edition) tell students that, "the living world is constantly evolving without any goals.. . .evolutionary change is not directed."