How The Study of Evolution Theories in Public School is Beneficial

Why is it crucial to teach evolution in public school curriculums? Laura Kahn’s article “Why Evolution Should Be Taught in Public Schools” addresses this very question. Kahn is a general internist and physician. Her career background gave her the credentials to emphasize the importance of education on evolution. Including evolution in the school system lessons continue to be a highly-debated topic because the government gives final ruling over educational guidelines and curriculums. Throughout the article, Kahn attempts to persuade readers that evolution is an important theory to teach within school systems by touching on the differences between religion and science, giving examples of previous scientific teachings, and exposing the absence of counterarguments.

Kahn addresses the main reason evolution “is critical to confronting the twenty-first century’s microbiological challenges” (1). Evolution is a part of research science that can be tested multiple times by using the scientific method and scientific technology. She defines creationism as the theory that a deity formed the Earth and all its components (4) while evolution is a scientific concept explaining how species and plants naturally evolve, which defies religious doctrine (4). She states that religious dogma is a pseudoscience by saying “society insists that religious doctrine, masquerading as science, be taught instead” (1). Her use of the term “masquerading” implies that religious dogma is not considered an official science because religious fables and beliefs cannot be tested or proven using the scientific method. Her article tells readers that evolution is one of the scientific theories needs to either remain or insert into public schools’ curriculums, and religious beliefs which cannot be proven should not be included in school-taught lessons, as religion does not equate science. She argues that because the religious doctrine is based on beliefs, it is not a proper scientific theory. In contrast, evolution involves a natural scientific process detailing how living organisms developed from prehistoric ancestors. This point evaluates the opposing side, which is an effective method in persuading a reader to agree with the author’s ideas. By explaining the opposing side’s views and then discrediting them, her argument becomes more reasonable and appealing. This form of rhetoric acknowledges that there is another side to the argument, but that the opposing party is not valid. However, Kahn’s wording gives the sense that she may be biased against this religious belief. Although her arguments in this section are well-constructed, it would be favorable for her to use more neutral language.

Within the article, Kahn also informs her readers about the history that details how science gave birth to public health, epidemiology, and microbiology. The infamous “dark ages” was a time in history in which populations struggled to contain diseases and the spread of bacteria. She focuses her attention on one of the scientific theories called “spontaneous generation,” which those living during the dark ages came to believe. The spontaneous generation theory suggests that living organisms can generate from non-living matter. She elaborates on the historical perspective of the dark ages to show that spontaneous generation theory does not “prepare scientists and physicians to develop effective strategies against the infectious diseases that were killing untold numbers of people” (1). In this way, she seems to be using the dark ages to support the argument that if evolution and evidence-supported scientific theories had taught the general population during that time rather than theories with little or no evidence, the deaths resulting from diseases and germs would have decreased dramatically. The population would have had the knowledge required to combat infections. However, Khan does not state that endorsing evolution during that time would have likely prevented the widespread diseases, but rather she implies it. Her outright stating of this belief and theorizing how teaching the evolution theory during that time would have impacted the dark ages allows readers to understand the cause and effect. The lack of clear explanation takes away from this argument’s effectiveness.

Kahn goes deeper into her history-based arguments by mentioning French chemist Louis Pasteur, who disproved “spontaneous generation” and replaced it with the “germ theory of disease”. The germ theory of disease tells us that microorganisms cause disease. She says “germ theory of disease allows us to understand the causes of infectious disease” (6-7), which reiterates her logic using historical facts with the significant effects on the present. Kahn also points out that in regards to scientific research, “evolution allows us to understand the development of antimicrobial resistance, the potential of avian influenza virus to mutate into human pandemic influenza virus, and the emergence of novel pathogens that can infect plants, animals, and humans” (7). She uses Pasteur as a reference to help readers understand that without evolution, there will be no knowledge of the role microorganisms play in regards to disease.

Specifically, Kahn’s research on Pasteur and the connection to evolution is profound. She makes a logical connection between Pasteur’s experiment and evolution by stating that Pasteur studied both spontaneous generation and fermentation (2). His test’s results disproved the spontaneous generation theory. He found out that “yeast played a huge role in wine-making and that bacteria were responsible for turning wine bad” (2). Kahn uses this historical reference to make known that evolution needs to be taught to children in public schools because, without this background, science would have no substance upon which to build from, and advancements in germ prevention would have taken far longer. This argument is convincing because Khan provides plenty of detail and background on the subject, then proceeds to connect her information to the topic. In this way, she is establishing logic and history in her argument, which can help to give her point more credibility.

Kahn elaborates on the term “creationism” to compare it to the evolution theory. She exposes the lack of support of those for creationism in school settings give to their arguments. She analyzes evolution and creationism by stating that creationism is based on beliefs while evolution contains legitimate proof and results. Kahn asks her readers the practical question “how would someone prove by observation and experimentation the existence of a deity…how would someone disprove evolution?” (4). Kahn answers that question by stating “they propose that creationism is an alternative scientific theory to evolution, yet they don’t provide scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent deity. Instead, they cite gaps in evolutionary theory” (4). In sum, this quote reveals the lack of supporting evidence creationists give in support of their views. By providing this argument, she highlights the absence of tangible proof of the opposing side’s arguments. In doing this, Kahn discredits those supporting the creationist theory by bringing to attention their focus on the opposing side’s views while they offer practically no evidence to support their arguments.

Throughout the article, Kahn provides sufficient evidence to support her arguments for teaching evolution in schools by talking about creationism, mentioning scientists from history, and criticizing the opposing side’s arguments. She concludes her stance on evolution by restating that evolution is essential to the public health and educational systems. The comparison between evolution and creationism concepts gives strength to her position in the argument because creationism is very hard to research and get results. Overall, Kahn does an excellent job convincing readers and myself that our school systems would benefit from keeping evolution theory in the curriculum, although there are a few instances in which she would benefit from clarifying her arguments or presenting a less biased description of creationism. However, most her arguments are well-crafted and persuasive.