Does creationism belong in any discussion of biogeography?
In one sense, the answer to this question is a matter of personal opinion. There is no objective way to say whether it is morally/religiously right to include creationism in studies of biogeography. From a scientific standpoint, there is no reason to include creationism in such studies. However, it is possible to bring biogeography up as evidence for or against the validity of creationism and evolution.
Biogeography is the study of how life is distributed across the planet and how this distribution came to be. For example, biogeographers might ask why kangaroos are only found in Australia or why lynx and snowshoe hares generally share the same habitats. From a scientific perspective, creationism is not something that can help us to understand these questions. Creationism would argue that particular patterns of biogeography arise because God intended for that to happen. The problem is that this is not a contention that can be proven or disproven scientifically. Therefore, creationism does not belong in any scientific study of biogeography.
Looking at things differently, however, we can say that biogeography would be an appropriate thing to bring up in a discussion of whether evolution or creationism is true. We can use theories about evolution to predict how certain species will be distributed across the planet. If actual distributions of species do not match with these predictions, we might be forced to question whether evolution is actually true. Many creationists argue that observed biogeographic patterns do not conform to what evolution would predict.
In short, we can use biogeography to help prove or disprove the theory of evolution. However, we cannot use creationism to scientifically explain biogeographic patterns because God’s will is not something that can be scientifically studied.
When science creates theory it is never surpassing the faith in the Creator mark. Even in the most popular theory like evolutionism, which itself is threaded into several currents of research, science can never affirm that God's existence has been disproven by any remarkable discovery.
Darwin, the author of the evolution theory, posed his own disclaimer. That means saying that wherever a link should be absent in the chain of evolution, his theory would have to stand only to be tested or discarded.
It cannot remain but for a strange reason that this theory would be chosen instead of the old time belief in God as Creator which has been set by faith and will continue to be so determined.
It is not a problem to have evolution mentioned with vigour in a biogeography course, but it deserves a response of faith to be declared again every time reason seems to remove or kill God.
In Christian and in other research circles, on the other hand, the biblical narration has diversities of interpretation, but none which could call that belief void just where there is a lack of full understanding about the beginning of the world and of life.
The biblical mandate is not to turn creationism into a scientific theory, in spite of attempts to reconcile evolutionist narratives. The belief we continue to hold is faith which has been upheld for millennial times and has survived in validation and credibility of documented sources quite many changing scientific theories which are addressed in a biogeography area of knowledge or in any other area where an attempt is made to go back in the clock as far as where we know in our hearts God and the Son were together and the Holy Spirit was brooding over the face of the chaotic abyss called into light and life by the Holy Mouth.