To think this person should not be a biology teacher?

[baublegirl454]

My son is yr 8, and had had concerns about his biology teacher for a while. She has often been totally unprepared for their lessons so they are told to just read from their textbooks, she can't use the whiteboard & often sets incomprehensible homework or on subjects that they haven't studied yet. She is new, so we hoped these were just teething issues and would improve. Howe er, DS came home on Friday and announced that she has said that she doesn't believe in Evolution and (I quote) 'I don't believe an explosion (I.e. The Big Bang) could create a house'
WTF????
Would we be unreasonable to approach the school about this?!

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/creationism_in_louisiana_public_school_science_classes_school_boards_and.html

There are lots of religious scientists and she is entitled to believe what she likes, but her personal beliefs should be remain just that - personal. If she is teaching NC she shouldn't be saying anything to contradict it.

Is she new as in NQT or just new to school? Dubious facts aside, sounds like she's having difficulty keeping up (or just not bothering).

Except it's a biology teacher not an RS teacher.

I don't know why the Big Bang theory is mentioned in RS alongside creation stories from religions, unless it's to compare them to our current scientific understanding. It's not a story, it's a scientific theory, so shouldn't be presented as if they hold the same weight.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution so which is it you have an issue with OP?

There is nothing wrong with the teacher believing whatever she likes but there is a big problem with her telling the kids.

One of my DCs was told about the healing power of pyramids when they were about 7 by their teacher (overseas school) . She got them to sit in a pyramid made of shapes and asked them if they could feel anything. .

I missed the part where Queen said she taught creation stories as part of a biology scheme of work - apologies if she did.

My point was in my experience students are taught as many of the 'stories' as possible - there's no emphasis on any being the right one and in fact when I've taught the Big Bang theory lesson (as cover I hasten to add!) I've actually been lucky enough to get a science teacher in to answer the (many) questions my students have had. I wouldn't have known where to start!

And it may be a 'scientific theory' but there are those who don't agree with it. They have as much right to believe their own story/theory as anyone else does. The reason they're all taught, in my opinion, is to allow people to maintain that right while developing some understanding of others' points of view.

I think I know what state Grammar school you are talking about OP (although in mine, the teacher is not new so I could be wrong)
An email needs to be sent to the Head of Department stating exactly what you have said here. Nothing will change unless people speak up.

And just for clarification I agree - she shouldn't have voiced her own opinions.

I've no idea on the OP but I struggle to believe a 12/13 year old child has a better understanding of how to teach than a Head of Department and other members of SLT at the school he's at....

I suspect most 12 year olds are surprisingly good at this. It's why some teachers get a much harder time than others. They are probably in a much better position than an ofsted inspector who spends less than one lesson in a classroom.

My grammar school A level Biology teacher was similar; highly religious, didn't believe in evolution and crap teacher too. At that age we just basically read the textbook and educated ourselves but y8 is a bit more of an issue.

Bingowings "students are taught as many of the 'stories' as possible - there's no emphasis on any being the right one"

I was under the impression that in science lessons they taught science not stories. They thing is with science us it is true whether you believe it or not because it's errrr you know SCIENCE. I don't think many scientists put forward creationism as a realistic proposition because it is religion not SCIENCE. Ffs.

Bingowings I assumed you were still referring to the OP rather than what Queen said, I think that's where the confusion is coming from.

The Big Bang theory isn't a 'scientific theory' in scare quotes, it is a scientific theory. No scare quotes needed. If you don't agree with the theory then point out where there are errors, or do some more research. It's not a matter of belief. Of course people can believe in whatever stories they like, but that's nothing to do with science and the scientific method.

Schools aren't supposed to teach all the stories with equal weighting. If they do decide to touch on the other stories in the science curriculum, then it should be with evolution as a scientific theory (i.e. a well substantiated explanation backed up with a body of evidence) vs other creation stories that don't fit with the current evidence.

The reason they were all taught under the last curriculum is more likely to have had something to do with the 'how science works' part of the curriculum.

It's odd to hear of all these many religious biology teachers who don't believe in evolution. I am a Christian and believe in evolution as do all the Christians I know. It's entirely compatible with Genesis (first God created planets, then seas/land, plants then animals then man. The Pope has stated evolution and creation are compatible.

They teach stories in RE lessons.
They teach science in science lessons.

In some parts of the RE curriculum they do teach you about TBBT , certainly it was a huge part of the curriculum I studied when I did Scottish Higher. Can't remember the name of the unit but we had to study the compatibility between religion and science . I remember we covered empirical evidence, subjectivity and objectivity, religious experiences, the Bible as a reliable text, evidence for TBBT, evidence of evolution and then brief studies on St Thomas Aquinas and intelligent design theories.

I only remember the subject so well as I won the prize I recall thinking it was wonderfully taught. It was entirely optional though and wasted on a class of 17 year olds, better taught that way to younger students.

I don't know how they teach younger children now , I left school in 2009 but certainly in primary we were not taught about evolution (and neithe was I at home). We were told Adam and Eve started the world and I think I did believe that until I was 14 or so.

Biology it was never discussed , we never studied evolution or TBBT or anything like that . At least, I don't think so. I think it was assumed you'd know as a given but I didn't know.

Just wanted to say my ds yr 7 biology teacher is the same. This is at a (paid for by the parents) private school. Apparently said she doesn't believe in the big bang as such but that "God may have created the Big Bang"

I just laughed and was a bit incredulous when ds told me

Reading this thread makes me think we should take it more seriously

There are many different branches of Christianity Campfiresmoke, so not that odd and I speak as a Christian myself.

To be fair, there aren't that many Biology teachers being referred to here, either. One or two?

I'm a science teacher and I'm also a Christian. So is my dh. There are lots of us out there.

A pp already summed up my views on this...

There are lots of religious scientists and she is entitled to believe what she likes, but her personal beliefs should be remain just that - personal. If she is teaching NC she shouldn't be saying anything to contradict it

A local free school came seriously unstuck for (amongst many, many other things) this sort of crap.

There is a place for creation stories and that is in RE lessons - even as an Atheist, I think that a balanced RE curriculum is extremely important in schools (religious fundies tend to be a side effect of that not happening).

Science teaching needs to stick with science, though, even in situations where scientists admit that they don't fully understand something. The fact that the whole nature of the big bang isn't an obvious, clear cut concept is important in a discussion about scientific curiosity - admitting that something isn't fully understood is how we learn and discover. It's the best theory that we have and will be modified and developed (and maybe even completely changed) as we observe and measure.

Bitofacow - 'I was under the impression that in science lessons they taught science not stories. They thing is with science us it is true whether you believe it or not because it's errrr you know SCIENCE. I don't think many scientists put forward creationism as a realistic proposition because it is religion not SCIENCE. Ffs.'

Yeah... Errrrrr I was referring to my earlier post errrrrr which clearly mentioned RS. Errrrrr FFS backatcha

'They teach stories in RE lessons.
They teach science in science lessons.'

Yeah... that was kind of my point. Everyone jumped on Queen for her comment, I was trying to say the same as you did. FFS

Speak no words - no meaning behind the 'scare quotes' (is that actually a thing that is different to using quotes?!) I was trying to differentiate the theory from the rest of the post. I actually have no desire or need to do more research thanks, I have no religious grounding whatsoever but hey, feel free to jump to your own conclusions on my beliefs based on a comment I've made on a forum...

bingowings it was a general you rather than aimed at you specifically. I made no assumptions about what you or anyone else believes!

The big bang is a widely verified theory - scientists have recreated the moments after it happened in giant particle accelerators snd every experiment is bearing out the theory. It is not widely disputed. It is mainstream and constantly tested front line science.

I would be beyond angry if my children were taught creationism as in any way comparable with evolution. It makes me fume with anger just thinking of my taxes supporting faith schools. Grrrr

"There are many different branches of Christianity"

Indeed, and the vast majority do not dispute scientifically established facts.

"so not that odd"
hmm, in my experience the few Christian groups that do ignore reality as a matter of doctrine are pretty odd. Perhaps you aren't from the UK, so its a more mainstream thing in your locale?

I disagree with the general idea that Science teacher must stick to Science. Its part of our professional framework that we must engage with 'the wider applications of Science' (i.e. this sort of debate). Questions of religion come up in these topics and it's fine to have religious views and to mention them (as personal views). The problem is:

1. Not fine to undermine key ideas, when her job is to impart understanding of the mechanism and evidence behind these ideas.

1. I can't see that someone who doubts these ideas understands them, or the nature of Science, well enough to teach Science. At the level of detail needed for GCSE, Natural Selection has been the proven mechanism for evolution for centuries- the amount of evidence is enormous.

"It makes me fume with anger just thinking of my taxes supporting faith schools. Grrrr"

Totally different argument. Faith schools don't teach creationism. Fortunately (almost) no school in the UK does.