↓ Skip to main content

Why I teach the controversy: using creationism to teach critical thinking

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Why I teach the controversy: using creationism to teach critical thinking
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00793
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Lynne Honey

Abstract

Creationism and intelligent design are terms used to describe supernatural explanations for the origin of life, and the diversity of species on this planet. Many scientists have argued that the science classroom is no place for discussion of creationism. 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. Also, a psychology class is an ideal place to discuss not only the scientific method but also the cognitive errors associated with non-science views. I began to explain creationism in my classes, and to model the scientific thought process that leads to a rejection of creationism. My approach is consistent with research that demonstrates that teaching content alone is insufficient for students to develop critical thinking and my admittedly anecdotal experience leads me to conclude that "teaching the controversy" has benefits for science students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Germany 1 3%
France 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 28%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Master 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 19%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Psychology 4 11%
Arts and Humanities 4 11%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 10 28%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,191,533
of 24,153,435 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,457
of 32,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,901
of 268,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#50
of 522 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,153,435 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 522 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.