Why should evolution be taught in public schools curriculums? Laura Kahn explains this in her article entitled “Why Evolution should be Taught In Public Schools”. Kahn, a physician and general internist, is an expert in this field. Her professional background has given her the credentials necessary to highlight the importance education about evolution. The inclusion of evolution in school curriculums and educational guidelines is a hotly debated topic, as the government has the final say on these matters. Kahn uses his article to try to convince readers that teaching evolution within school systems is important. Kahn does this by discussing differences between religions, mentioning previous scientific theories, and pointing out the lack counterarguments.
Kahn states that “evolution is crucial to meet the challenges of microbiology in the twenty first century”(1). Evolution is part of the research science and can be tested many times using scientific methods and technology. She defines Creationism as a theory that a divine being created the Earth with all of its components. She claims that religious dogma, which is presented as science by society, is pseudoscience. Her use of “masquerading”, implies that dogma and religious beliefs are not official sciences because they cannot be proven or tested by the scientific method. Her article tells her readers to keep or add evolution as a scientific theory in public school curricula. However, religious beliefs that are not proven shouldn’t appear in the lessons. She says that since religious doctrines are based on faith, they do not qualify as a valid scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific process that explains how organisms evolved from their prehistoric ancestors. This point is a powerful way to persuade a reader’s opinion. Her argument is made more convincing and plausible by explaining and discrediting the opposing views. This rhetorical form acknowledges there are opposing views, but discredits them. Kahn’s use of language makes it seem as if she has a bias against this belief. Though her arguments are well constructed, she would benefit from using more neutral terminology.
Kahn’s article also tells readers how the science of public health, epidemics, and microbiology was born. The “darkages” were a time when populations battled against diseases and bacterial spread. She pays particular attention to the “spontaneous-generation” theory, which people in the dark ages believed. The theory of spontaneous creation suggests that non-living matter can be transformed into living matter. She explains the history of the dark times to show the lack of preparation of scientists and physicians for developing effective strategies against infectious diseases, which killed untold numbers. This is a way of using the dark age to argue that the death rate from disease and germs could have been drastically reduced if scientists and evolutionists had taught people the scientific theories supported by evidence during this time instead of theories without evidence. The population could have fought infections with the information they had. Khan doesn’t explicitly state that evolution would have prevented widespread disease at that time, but she does imply it. This belief is stated directly and she explains the impact of teaching the theory of evolution at the time. This argument is less effective because it lacks a clear explanation.
Kahn elaborates on the history of her arguments, referencing French chemist Louis Pasteur. Pasteur replaced the idea of “spontaneous-generation” with that of “germ theory.” According to the germ theory, microorganisms lead to disease. She says that the germ theory of disease helps us understand the causes for infectious diseases (6-7), and this logic is reinforced by historical facts. Kahn points out, too, that “evolution helps us understand how antimicrobials are developed, whether avian viruses can mutate to human pandemics, or the emergence of new pathogens infecting plants, animals and humans.” She refers to Pasteur to show that evolution is necessary to understand the role of microorganisms in disease.
Kahn has done extensive research on Pasteur’s experiment and its connection with evolution. She argues that Pasteur was interested in both spontaneous fermentation and generation. The results of the test disproved Pasteur’s theory. He discovered that “yeast was a major factor in the wine-making process and that bacteria are responsible for making wine bad”. Kahn uses the historical reference in order to show that children need to learn about evolution in school. Without this knowledge, science wouldn’t have a solid foundation to build on, and advances in germ prevention could have taken much longer. Khan’s argument is convincing as she provides background and details on the topic before connecting her information. By establishing history and logic in her argument, she can lend it credibility.
Kahn compares the terms “creationism” and evolution theory. She shows how creationists are not supported in schools. She argues that evolution is supported by legitimate evidence and proof, while creationism relies on beliefs. Kahn poses the question to her readers: “How would one disprove evolution by observing and experimenting? Kahn’s answer to that question is “they don’t have any evidence that an intelligent deity exists, but propose creationism as a scientific theory alternative to evolution.” They instead cite gaps within evolutionary theory”(4). This quote highlights the lack support for creationists’ views. This argument highlights that the arguments on the opposing side are not backed up by any tangible evidence. Kahn’s discrediting of creationists is done by focusing on their opposing views, while offering little evidence to back up their arguments.
Kahn uses a variety of evidences to prove her case for the teaching of evolution in school. She discusses creationism while citing scientists throughout history and criticizing their arguments. Her final statement on evolution restates that it is crucial to both the educational and public health systems. It is because of the difficulty in researching and getting results for creationism that she can make a strong argument. Kahn is successful in convincing me and my readers that evolution theory should be included in our curriculum. However, there are some instances where she could clarify her arguments or present a less biased creationism description. Her arguments are generally well-crafted.
