Here is how she does it:
"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."
Brilliant, and yet incredibly obvious if you think about it.
If you introduce Creationism as just another scientific theory and then expose it to scrutiny and watch it fall apart.
Of course unfortunately this might work well in a university setting but perhaps not so well in an elementary or high school science classroom, which of course is where the Creationist insist that this should be taught.
Because let's face it, they know full well that indoctrination works best when the subject is young and full of trust.
That's exactly how I do it too. I often volunteer teach science/natural history. With the middle school kids we are teaching them the basics of what scientific exploration is. We can take the philosophy of creationism and put it to the test - can we take a hypothesis of creationism and put it towards a scientific test? Even with the younger students, it doesn't take them long to realize that creationism is NOT science.
ReplyDeleteSarah looks like she is 6,000 years old ... I rest my case.
ReplyDeleteFundies have no sense of logic and aren't interested in developing it.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see Prof. Honey's lectures and/or classes online to demonstrate what she's teaching so that the rest of us non-teachers (or those of us who suck at it) could spread this far and wide.
ReplyDeleteFundamentalist creationism is just a lazy "well, God did it" instead of trying to figure out mechanisms. There are no experimental results to cover, so one could introduce, discuss and make conclusions about creationism in a few minutes of class. None of its advocates are scientists -- they're lawyers and Evangelists that often are quite good at debating and arguing, but have never stepped foot in a modern science laboratory. They've painted themselves into a corner by basing the validity of their faith on a literal interpretation of Genesis and thus are programmed to Always. Deny. Evolution. Their alternative is to burn in hell for eternity. They really think this, which is why I have sympathy for them, regardless of how awful they behave. No use arguing with them because they're not honestly arguing -- they KNOW the answers before the argument begins.
ReplyDeleteHere's some trivia. Before we had high-power microscopes and knowledge of genes, etc., the prevailing thought was that a human came from fully-formed, but very, very tiny human that resided inside a man's sperm. The little person was called a homunculus, who was apparently transferred to a woman's womb during sex. This idea led to a reductio ad absurdum with a chain of homunculi all the way down (homunculi sperm also had homunculi, whose sperm also had homunculi, etc. -- kinda like the Russian nesting doll (matryoshka/babushka doll). This aligned well with the prevailing religious thought that all mankind was originally created and stored in Adam's testicles. It took a relatively long time for the homunculus theory to go away -- it was very popular for over a hundred years up until the late 1800s. For more on homunculus, check out Wikipedia's entry on Preformationism.
ReplyDeleteI love Professor Honey's approach. Giving the onus to the students to ask the questions ensures that it'll sink in and keeps the Prof out of trouble. "Well, they asked, and I explained it". When My kids were in school, some folks "demanded" creationism be taught, and the teacher taught from the Quoran. When they became offended, she explained she can't discriminate and only teach ONE, and besides, there aren't enough hours in a day to cover them all.
ReplyDeletei hate to say it but she just doesn't get it ... any busts in logic are very simple ... they are put there by the devil to mislead 'us'. as a geologist teaching at a very (one of the most) prestigious universities in the US, that was what i was told by a student who took my class 'to know the enemy'. no matter how logical, you cannot defeat stupid.
ReplyDelete