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?!

They should NOT be taught as equal, obviously.

Many in fact most religious people believe in both the Big Bang and Evolution. It is not our place to say one is more valid than another. Only to present the arguments that people use to explain their beliefs and the evidence against of arguments.

Or more accurately how people respond to criticism of their beliefs.

Out of interest, why do you think the academic study of religious beliefs does not have a place in schools?

It's absolutely fine to say one is more valid than the other. Especially in a school.

It's not like we decide we need to let children decide for themselves whether other parts of the science curriculum are true.

Leave the debates for things like ethics rather than evidence and facts.

Many in fact most religious people believe in both the Big Bang and Evolution. It is not our place to say one is more valid than another.

The Big Bang and evolution are not in conflict with one another. It's the Big Bang and evolution vs six day creation.

It is not our place to say one is more valid than another

Yes it is. Because one IS more valid than the other. They are not equally opposing opinions by any metric. One is FAR more valid than the other, which is not valid at all.

Only to present the arguments that people use to explain their beliefs and the evidence against of arguments

In a SCIENCE lesson, does faith count as evidence?

Or does scientific evidence count as evidence?

"It is not our place to say one is more valid than another"

Certainly bloody is!

zaphodsotherhead - sorry the name was fortuously already in the box waiting, so I took it

I would talking about RE lessons. And I stand by that is not the place of an RE teacher to say one belief is more valid than other.

I would agree that an RE teacher shouldn't say one belief is more important than another. They shouldn't be presenting the current scientific position as a belief though.

Yup don't teach evolution and Big Bang as a belief. Teach them as science. Then say 'some people believe this instead'.

Science is not based on belief. It's based on scientific evidence which is tested.

And I stand by that is not the place of an RE teacher to say one belief is more valid than other

Indeed - RE should teach what different religions believe about things. Not indoctrinate.

Science does not belong in an RE lesson - because RE is about religion and science is not a faith based religion. It's based on facts, not belief.

I'm not surprised at this. Ten years ago I got into a row with my biology teacher at a top grammar school, because she said she didn't believe in global warming and God would stop the ice caps melting.

I wonder is it the same teacher?

Interesting 2nd thread, OP.
I didn't know there were state grammar schools in London. Every day's a school day.

There are quite a few state grammars in London aren't there?

Especially in the south.

Church of scientology, anyone? What's that all about?

Best not to ask, Zafod. We could be here all night picking that one apart.

Odd. The biology teachers that taught me and that I've worked with (that's three grammar schools in total) didn't mention anything other than evolution in Biology. They didn't mention the Big Bang because it wasn't relevant, that would have been for Physics.
As for the reference to London. Students from London do go out to the state grammars in surrounding counties.

No purple, and if you read what I wrote you'd understand my point

What I said "In this day and age, religion and belief systems have NO PLACE IN A SCIENCE CLASS. And those 'teachers' that peddle such shite have no place there either (though they might learn something, if they could wedge open their tiny minds for a millisecond, and actually read the science.)"

So you see what I mean is "In this day and age, religion and belief systems have NO PLACE IN A SCIENCE CLASS. And those 'teachers' that peddle such shite have no place there either (though they might learn something, if they could wedge open their tiny minds for a millisecond, and actually read the science.)"

There is no place for belief systems in a science class. Science is about evidence and cold hard maths, not belief and wishy washy myth.

Most people cannot do the maths so think it's all made up like their own half arsed theories, and it suits them not to have to do the work and to think, or learn.

Science is science, religion is religion and the two shouldn't meet in the same class. The OP's DS's teacher sounds unqualified to teach science.

Like a pp, I too had a nun teach me science and she never ever brought anything other than science into the lab. She was a professional and a very good scientist. She kept her beliefs to herself, and earned our respect because of it.

Oh god I can't use the interactive whiteboards, in fact I hate them.

I realise that I may be clutching at straws but could it be they were meant to be having a discussion but it was like pulling teeth not going very well, so she said something outrageous to spark the discussion?

Yy Bertrand Russell. It makes me v depressed too especially as 'for the sake of balance' they allow stoopid climate change deniers on air as a valid member of any media panel in equal numbers to the scientists.

They prefer the easy peasy, no brain hurty route of conspiracy fairy tales and post modernist 'debate', and aren't qualified or legitimate in any way to discuss anything scientific.

If a debate is to be really balanced why not get some more scientists with slightly different interpretations of the data, and ditch the usual meeja suspects and religious myth believers. They are not relavent to the debate. They're simply not qualified. Science is not a matter of personal opinion.

I mean obviously media people sell advertising, but it seems to me they learned anything useful in meeja skool, like scientific method, or rationality, just titivating, click bait, tits and ass.
They don't seem to give a shite: just slaves to ad revenue and viewing numbers.

And of course this wilful lack of understanding of science and the scientific method trickles down to schools as it's the easy route for lazy minds to take.

It's not Northern Ireland is it? Sadly talk of grammar schools and creationist biology teachers it sounds just like home.

164 grammar schools in England. Or is it 148? One or the other. I would be amazed if creationism was being taught in any of them.

As something some people believe, Creationism is taught in RS.