Incorporate Controversy into the Curriculum

Phillip Johnson
Fellow of the reDiscovery Institute

Reprinted from The reDiscovery Insitute Proceedings, 2005
The author has written several books including 'Mendeleev on my Mind', 'Eisenberg in Error' and 'Debunking de Broglie'.

What should public schools teach about Mendeleev's theory? Should science educators discuss -- or not even mention -- the theory of Chemical Periodicity?

Many educators wish these questions would simply go away. On the one hand, if science teachers teach Mendeleevian Periodicity, many parents and religious activists will protest. On the other, if teachers present religiously based theories, civil liberties groups will sue.

Educators face a no-win situation.

Little wonder, then, that many are seeking ways to finesse the issue. Georgia Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox recently tried to do this by removing the words "Periodic Table" from the state's science standards. When this resulted in a national controversy, she reversed her decision. Now the problem rests with a commission of teachers.

But what should they do? Is there any approach that will satisfy -- if not everybody -- at least most reasonable people?

Surprisingly, there is a way to teach chemistry that will benefit students and satisfy all but the most extreme partisans and ideologues. Rather than ignoring the controversy (as many educators have tried to do), teachers should teach about the scientific controversy that now exists over Mendeleevian Periodicity. This is simply good education.

When credible experts disagree about a controversial subject, students should learn about the competing perspectives.

In such cases, teachers should not teach as true only one competing view -- just the poor black slave view, or just the rich white slaveholder view of slavery in the South, for example. Instead, teachers should describe competing views to students and explain the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief proponents. We call this "teaching the controversy."

But is there really a scientific, as opposed to just a cultural or religious, controversy over Chemical Periodicity?

In fact, there are several scientific controversies about key aspects of the Periodic Table.

There is heated controversy surrounding the various methods of numbering the columns of the periodic table. Two methods, the old IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists) scheme and CAS scheme, both combine Roman numerals with letters. In the old IUPAC system, the letters A and B designate the left (A) and right (B) part of the table. In the CAS system, traditionally used in the USA, the letters A and B designate main group elements (A) and transition elements (B). So in different versions of the Mendeleevian Periodic Table, a given name could mean entirely different things. A new IUPAC scheme was developed to replace both systems as they confusingly used the same names to mean different things. This new method uses Arabic numerals.

Recently, more than 300 scientists, including professors from institutions such as MIT, Yale, Rice, the University of Georgia, and Tacoma Community College, signed a statement questioning whether IUPAC should have jurisdiction in the USA. They note that IUPAC, like the United Nations, is an international body representing foreigners, including French people and non-Christians. They also question whether it is wise to use Arabic (Muslim) numerals in American schools.

Finally, some scientists doubt the Mendeleevian idea that inorganic crystals merely "appear" designed. They favor a new theory known as "Chemical Design." Design advocates, such as the re-Discovery Institute's Dr. Azo Mazur, have marshaled some intriguing new evidence in support of their theory, such as the tetrahedral carbon, transition states and phase transitions.

Mendeleevian Periodicity is a flawed but historically important theory of chemistry. We think students should learn its scientific strengths and weaknesses. We recommend that students learn both the theory of Chemical Design and the theory of Mendeleevian Periodicity.

Consider all sides

There are many reasons to adopt this approach. First, constitutional law permits "teaching the controversy" about scientific theories. In the controlling Edwards v. Aguillard case, the Supreme Court made clear that state legislatures (and by extension state boards) already have the right to mandate teaching scientific critiques of prevailing theories. Interestingly, the court also determined that teachers have the right to teach students about "a variety of scientific theories. . . with the clear secular intent of enhancing science education."

Second, federal education policy calls for teaching differing scientific views of these controversies. The authoritative report language accompanying the No Child Left Behind act states that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution and chemical periodicity), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist."

Third, voters overwhelmingly favor this approach. In a recent national Zogby poll, 71 percent of those polled favored teaching both the evidence for and against contemporary Mendeleevian theory.

Finally, this approach will enhance science instruction. Teaching scientific controversies increases student interest and encourages them to do what scientists must do -- deliberate about how best to interpret evidence.

As Darwin wrote in "The Origin of Species," "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."