Why is it essential to teach evolution in public school curricula? Laura Kahn's article “Why Evolution Should Be Taught in Public Schools” addresses this very question. Kahn is a general internist and physician. Her professional background has given her the credentials to highlight the importance of evolution education. The inclusion of evolution in the school system continues to be a hotly debated topic because the government makes the final decision on educational guidelines and programs. 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, providing examples of previous scientific teachings, and exposing the absence of counterarguments. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Kahn addresses the main reason why evolution “is critical to addressing the microbiological challenges of the twenty-first century” (1). Evolution is a part of scientific research that can be tested repeatedly using the scientific method and scientific technology. He defines creationism as the theory that a deity formed the Earth and all its components (4), while evolution is a scientific concept that explains how species and plants evolve naturally, which challenges religious doctrine ( 4). He claims that religious dogma is pseudoscience saying that “society insists that religious doctrine, disguised as science, be taught instead” (1). His use of the term “masking” implies that religious dogma is not considered an official science because fables and religious beliefs cannot be tested or proven using the scientific method. His article tells readers that evolution is one of the scientific theories that must remain or be included in public school curricula, and that religious beliefs that cannot be proven should not be included in lessons taught in schools, because religion it is not the same as science. You argue that because religious doctrine is based on beliefs, it is not a true scientific theory. In contrast, evolution involves a natural scientific process that details how living organisms developed from prehistoric ancestors. This point evaluates the other side, which is an effective method to persuade the reader to agree with the author's ideas. By explaining the opposing side's views and then discrediting them, his argument becomes more reasonable and attractive. This form of rhetoric recognizes that there is another side to the issue, but that the opposing side is invalid. However, Kahn's words give the sense that she may be prejudiced against this religious belief. Although your arguments in this section are well constructed, it would be favorable for you to use more neutral language. Within the article, Kahn also informs his readers about the history that details how science gave birth to public health, epidemiology, and microbiology. The infamous "dark ages" were a historical period in which populations struggled to contain diseases and the spread of bacteria. He focuses his attention on one of the scientific theories called “spontaneous generation”, which was believed by those who lived during the dark ages. The theory of spontaneous generation suggests that living organisms can generate from nonliving matter. He elaborates the historical perspective of the dark ages to demonstrate that the theory of spontaneous generation does not “preparescientists and doctors to develop effective strategies against infectious diseases that were killing countless numbers of people” (1). In this way, it appears that you are using the Dark Ages to support the argument that if evolution and scientific theories supported by evidence had taught the general population during that period rather than theories with little or no evidence, the resulting deaths from diseases and germs would have decreased dramatically. The population would have had the necessary knowledge to fight infections. However, Khan does not state that supporting evolution during that time would likely have prevented the spread of disease, but rather implies as much. His open statement of this belief and theorizing about how the teaching of evolutionary theory during that time would impact the Dark Ages allows readers to understand cause and effect. The lack of a clear explanation undermines this argument's effectiveness. Kahn furthers his history-based arguments by quoting 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. He says that “the germ theory of disease allows us to understand the causes of infectious diseases” (6-7), which reiterates his logic by using historical facts with significant effects on the present. Kahn also points out that, as far as scientific research is concerned, “evolution allows us to understand the development of antimicrobial resistance, the potential of the avian influenza virus to mutate into the human pandemic influenza virus, and the emergence of new agents pathogens that can infect plants, animals, and humans” (7). He uses Pasteur as a reference to help readers understand that without evolution, there will be no knowledge of the role microorganisms play in disease. Specifically, Kahn's research on Pasteur and the connection to evolution is profound. He makes a logical connection between Pasteur's experiment and evolution by stating that Pasteur studied both spontaneous generation and fermentation (2). The results of his test disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. He discovered that “yeast played a huge role in winemaking and that bacteria were responsible for making the wine worse” (2). Kahn uses this historical reference to make the point that evolution must be taught to children in public schools because, without this background, science would have no substance to build on, and progress in germ prevention would take much longer. This argument is compelling because Khan provides a lot of detail and background on the topic, then proceeds to connect his information to the topic. By doing this, he is establishing logic and history in his argument, which can help give more credibility to his point. Kahn elaborates the term “creationism” to compare it with the theory of evolution. It exposes the lack of support from those who support creationism in school settings to their arguments. He analyzes evolution and creationism by stating that creationism is based on beliefs while evolution contains legitimate evidence and results. Kahn asks his readers the practical question “how could someone prove through observation and experimentation the existence of a deity…how could someone disprove evolution?” (4). Kahn answers this question by stating that “they propose that creationism is an alternative scientific theory to evolution, but they provide no scientific evidence for the existence of an intelligent deity. Instead, they cite gaps in evolutionary theory” (4). In summary, this quote is revealing.