The Scientific Method?

This is very much on my mind lately as I start my first semester of an assistant professor-ship at a community college. This semester I am teaching 2 different introductory biology courses for non-majors and an important question is “what exactly do they NEED to know?”. Of course, covering your college’s curricula is a good start, but what do you do with The Scientific Method? Is it really so important that non-scientists be able to list each distilled “step” (and will they even remember them after the class?)? I show them (and test on) the standard minimalist list of steps (Observations, form a question, etc etc) and then tell them that this is a gross oversimplification and that, while it DOES happen at times it is embedded in a much much much larger and more complicated process. I then show one of the really complicated scientific method figures you can find on the internet that includes “collaboration”, “manuscript rejections”, “being scooped” and “blind stabs in the dark”. I then emphasize that the important part is that, when science is being done “at its best” (don’t ask me what I mean by this) the scientists are willing to give up what they know as “facts” if new observations pop up that contradict it. I said willing, not that they always do (or even should). The other thing I emphasize is the difference between hypothesis and theory, and how “theory” definitions outside of science differ from the formal scientific word. Any feedback/suggestions for how I should teach The Scientific Method – I mean aside from using the basso profundo echoing voice when I say it (they just LOVE that)? I was a researcher for almost 15 years, but its interesting how little researchers think about the process they are using while doing it.