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?!

Most schools will have science teachers teaching general science up to year 9 (some up to GCSE). If she's being taught year seven biology by a physics or chemistry specialist that really isn't anything to worry about.

Your right. I wan't thinking that to be honest - but yes a general science teacher at y8 would be what I expect.

I'm thinking more my child being taught maths by a PE teacher - who second subject isn't maths and finding out their English and history teacher subject is science though they've been moved as they have a science teacher shortage so sh'e having a succession of teachers at minute.

Agree with a previous poster - put all this in writing and send to her head of department. If you don't know who that is, i would send it to the head (so they are aware!) and they can forward it onto the head of department but at least the head is also aware!!

This is appalling. I'm a head of department and I'd be furious if this was how one of my staff was behaving. It's seriously concerning

For some people it's as if the Enlightenment never happened.....

So bloody depressing. I hate living in a post truth anti intellectual world.

Your right - should be you're right - obviously there.

Surely in a science class one gets taught science and in a religious education class, one is taught religion

In an RE class, children are taught what people of different faiths believe. There is discussion about beliefs and ethics is discussed as well.

If this is an academy, the teacher doesn't have to be a qualified teacher at all, and it sounds as if that is distinctly possible.

You can't teach one theory without mentioning the other, and naturally kids will ask/talk about them.

Of course you can. Teaching time is limited enough without having to spend time on woo. When dealing with the planets and the globe, should teachers really have to spend time talking about the flat earth theory?

Why do people keep citing the Pope here? . You are aware the Pope is not the head of the church of the world, he's the head of the Catholic Church. Plenty Christians aren't Catholic.

It was before interactive whiteboards.. my mum's a teacher, when they brought the boards in, they all had an inset day to learn how to use them - but surely if she's newly qualified she'd have encountered them before. Exactly and that's why the OP is nonsense.

Sorry MrsWhiteWash I misunderstood what you meant by a non-specialist. There is a shocking lack of science teachers at the moment. I hope things get sorted at your daughter's school.

A few years ago, MN had their very own Young Earth Creationist, who first turned up on this thread and proceeded to mansplain it all to us over the course of several threads.

I found it hilarious and terrifying in equal measure.

I was merely a technician in a school but I knew how to use an Interactive White Board! We occasionally had to help out teachers when things blew or bulbs needed changing - all teachers, except sometimes those older ones on supply, knew at least how to turn them on, and if they didn't, we would ride in to help.

So not knowing how to use a IWB is no excuse. Someone should be there to help, and show her how to. It does sound as though this teacher might not be qualified at all - I've heard some terrible things about people being shoved in front of classes who weren't qualified teachers - and one of the reasons I left school was that the Head was making moves to save money by getting us technicians to teach (out of books, with no training).

By the way, I am not the 'Zafodbeeblebrox'. I can spell Zaphod!

On another note I am of the opinion that weather you believe in intelligent design, creation, darwinist evolution etc., they are all just theories and unsupported by conclusive evidence (ie.the missing link). No one was there all that time ago to bear witness to whatever took place.

Rather ironic that someone named after a Douglas Adams character (well, sort of) would write this.

Did someone just say 'you can't teach one theory without the other' er, you absolutely can. One is verifiable science and one is complete bollocks.

donquixotedelamancha

I think you misunderstood my post and have quoted me out of context.

I was responding to Campfire's post who inferred that posters may have been embellishing the truth a little as Christians do and that I was saying that there are a minor few Christian Biology teachers who follow the creationist theory so posters having these experiences at school was not that odd, due to the fact that there ARE different branches such as Creationists.

And I am from the U.K.

Pressed send before correcting

*as Christians do not dispute scientific facts and that I was saying...

You can't teach one theory without mentioning the other, and naturally kids will ask/talk about them

You can, and absolutely should. One is the leading scientific accepted theory, and one is religious belief based on nothing but faith which has no place at all in a science class.
Or in a school at all, IMHO, but that's a different vanload of nuns.

On another note I am of the opinion that weather you believe in intelligent design, creation, darwinist evolution etc., they are all just theories and unsupported by conclusive evidence (ie.the missing link). No one was there all that time ago to bear witness to whatever took place.

No, they are not all "just theories". Evolution is an ongoing process and there is plenty of very good evidence for it, including evidence of recent evolution. Witness, for instance, the fact that some birds in the Chernobyl area have developed a tolerance for radiation, and the evolution of the peppered moth.

If I had a time machine I'd hop back and have a word with Charlie.

"Thing is mate, in the future (where we have universal free education in the western world) people are really going to struggle with a word like theory, so can we kind of think of this from a pr point of view."

"No honestly, Chuck, they won't manage"

"Yeah, sorry they are still arguing about it"

Megatherium Black Peppered Moth is evidence for natural selection rather than evolution.

I've met people who believe the earth was created as per Genesis timeline but that natural selection is part of that design for ongoing life rather than natural selection being the mechanism of evolution itself

I've met people who believe the earth was created as per Genesis timeline but that natural selection is part of that design for ongoing life rather than natural selection being the mechanism of evolution itself

Me too. It's quite difficult to get a six Day creationist to engage with the scientific evidence regarding the longer term evolution of species. This is an unusual position for Christians to take though. Most accept the Big Bang theory and evolution as true but God started it all. What happened before the Big Bang is very much a matter of faith.

You can't teach one theory without mentioning the other, and naturally kids will ask/talk about them

Of course you can!!

As an RE teacher I am horrified that any teacher in a non religious school is sharing their beliefs with students. We were taught that we should never share our views as we are in a position of influence.

Big Bang and evolution are taught along side creation theories to explain what religious and non religious people believe about the origins of the universe and how they respond to arguments which disagree with their beliefs.

As for no religion in a science class. I am aware that religious reasons for ethical considerations of issues like ivf and genetic engineering.

I have been teaching 6 years and use an IWB as I have not worked in classrooms who have one. I will when I go back after maternity leave but I will have a quick go before lessons.

There is a shortage of science teachers so she may not be a science teacher.

If you have concerns about the teaching then ring the head of department.

Big Bang and evolution are taught along side creation theories to explain what religious and non religious people believe about the origins of the universe and how they respond to arguments which disagree with their beliefs

RE class or not, they should be taught as if they are equal and valid theories. They are not.
It's not about what "religious and non religious people believe" at all, that's a fundamental problem with teaching in this way. You can be religious and still understand science, and vice versa.

This is why religion has no place in schools.

You can't teach one theory without mentioning the other, and naturally kids will ask/talk about them

But there are a LOT of different Creation stories out there. Not just God created the Earth in 7 days. Should all of them be mentioned?

Or maybe they should be kept for RE lessons - and the scientific theory discussed in science?