[Aric2000]

SO, and what is wrong with that?

If I say that 2+2=5, I get an F.

If I say that creationism is based in fact, and then say that evolution has no evidence to back it up.

Then I should get an F, because I obviously do not understand science, nor it's basic concepts.

Therefore, I would not deserve a letter. as a matter of fact, I would not deserve to pass the course.

[Not Insane]

--If I say that creationism is based in fact, and then say that evolution has no evidence to back it up.

Then I should get an F, because I obviously do not understand science, nor it's basic concepts.--

I most definitely agree. After all, creationism is based on faith. Christianity REQUIRES faith, which is one reason there is any debate at all. There is evidence for evolution. There is evidence that G.W. Bush sleeps around, but not enough to convict.

--Therefore, I would not deserve a letter. as a matter of fact, I would not deserve to pass the course.--

Your whole post misses the point. The teacher asked them to have the "right opinion" based on interpretation of facts, not the facts themselves. If he had said, "What are the POSSIBLE forms of evolution you think could be supported by the fossil evidence and why?" or some such, it would have been different. He was asking them what they think, not what they think are plausible theories. That's the rub. One can be a creationist Christian and still understand all the facts and evidences used to support the theory of evolution and still think it is wrong without being intellectually bankrupt.

You can understand all the implications and results of rust on a car without having to believe the rust created the car.