Creationism is not science, but science class is the perfect place to discuss creationism.

In the past, I've espoused the opposite belief: that merely mentioning creationism in a scientific setting inadvertently lends credence to it. But after reading an excellent op-ed by MacEwan University Professor P. Lynne Honey, published last week in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, I have changed my mind.

Honey, who teaches critical thinking and evolutionary behavior, once avoided discussing creationism in class, but eventually realized it could be harnessed for scientific learning.

"When I began teaching I did not teach creationism, as I focused instead on my areas of expertise. Over time it became clear that students had questions about creationism, and did not understand the difference between a scientific approach to knowledge and non-scientific approaches. This led me to wonder whether ignoring supernatural views allowed them to remain as viable ‘alternatives’ to scientific hypotheses in the minds of students... I began to explain creationism in my classes, and to model the scientific thought process that leads to a rejection of creationism."

Honey's methods, which she has refined over many years, are simple, yet powerful:

"Creationism is presented as a sociopolitical controversy rather than a scientific controversy. I emphasize that there is no question about the validity of evolution as an explanatory model, and I present creationism as a political or ‘denialist’ movement rather than a competing theory with its own strengths and evidence. I then present several common assertions from creationism (e.g., that there are no transitional fossils), and refute them using scientific evidence. At the same time, I explain several of the common logical fallacies that are evident in creationist arguments. I encourage students to ask questions, and force me to defend my statements. I then ask them to attempt to generate hypotheses and tests of creationism. Their struggles with this task lead them, logically, to the conclusion that many creationist assertions are unfalsifiable and therefore nonscientific."

Honey's head-on approach is far superior to the ignorance approach touted by atheist scientists Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne. When 42% of Americans persistently believe that "God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago," it behooves science educators to engage them, not ignore or ridicule them, which will serve only to further entrench their unscientific beliefs.

"Dawkins and Coyne argued that creationism ‘no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class’," Honey writes. "I argue that alchemy could belong in chemistry classrooms, if it demonstrated why some methods of gathering knowledge are more valid than others."

Moreover, Honey writes, discussing creationism in science class imparts vital critical thinking skills.

"If I simply state that creationism is not scientific, then I ask my students to take my word for it because I am the authority as a scientist. They may adopt my views, because I’m an authority, but not because they have internalized the logic that led to my views. When I allow them to apply the scientific method to creationism, they practice being scientists themselves."

Honey urges science educators to not only bring creationism into the classroom, but other forms of pseudo- and non-science as well.

"As educators, we can take the opportunity to tackle topics that students may see in the media, on social media, or around the dinner table, and model our thought processes as we explain how scientists come to conclusions. We can emphasize that not all statements are equally valid, not all ‘authorities’ are equally authoritative, and not all hypotheses are equally testable. We can also allow students to practice their logic skills, and apply them to new topics that arise with each poorly informed Facebook meme, or celebrity fad. Non-science and anti-science views do have a place in the science classroom, because they can be used to train students in the logic associated with scientific thought."

Source: Honey P. (2015) Why I teach the controversy: Using creationism to teach critical thinking. Front. Psychol. 6:793. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00793

(Image: AP)