EVOLUTION AS A PEDAGOGICAL PLATFORM FOR EDUCATION CONCERNING SCIENTIFIC MISCONCEPTIONS, BELIEF-BASED OPINIONS, AND CRITICAL THINKING

Strict adherence to nonempirical beliefs in spite of facts hampers critical thinking. Whether such beliefs are based on faith, pseudoscience, or tradition, their acceptance as facts has major consequences for rational decision-making regardless of disciplinary boundaries. Rejecting the validity of evolution is a specific form of science denialism that is often based on deep-seated religious beliefs, either explicitly or implicitly. The adversarial “evolution versus religion” narrative is familiar to many college students. However, because many students lack sufficient scientific context, presenting this debate in an oppositional framework may elicit unintended antagonistic responses that could be detrimental to effective science education. Specifically, pedagogical efforts that highlight the importance of differentiating preconceived ideas from empirical knowledge could be overshadowed by a debate that is steeped in social—though not scientific—controversy. In contrast, engaging students in reflective exercises that include open- ended inquiry could foster critical thinking and receptiveness to evidence-based skepticism. During an introductory science class for 31 non-science majors, students read “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”, an essay by Stephen J. Gould in which he argues the basic premise that empirical knowledge and faith-based belief are largely independent domains of thought. I then prompted students to write a single-page reflection that (1) indicated whether they agreed with Gould’s basic premise and that (2) expressed their personal opinions regarding the topic. Subsequently, students engaged in robust and respectful discussions concerning the intersections of scientific misconceptions, pseudoscientific claims, and faith-based beliefs. Although acceptance of evolution was not universal (≈30% of students rejected evolution), it is unlikely that any acceptable pedagogical method would result in rapid transformation from religious adherent to scientific skeptic. Nonetheless, this non-adversarial approach provided a platform to clarify misconceptions about evolution, to introduce science as a foundation of empirical knowledge, and could potentially foster long-term scientific literacy and advocacy for quality science education.