UK Head Teacher Claims ‘There Is More Evidence For The Bible Than Evolution’


Even though attitudes in the U.K are predominantly (and increasingly) secular, one of the more depressing aspects about religion in the UK is the privilege it enjoys in our educational system. Faith schools of all stripes and denominations exist up and down the country, instilling their particular brand of dogma and untruth in the minds of children. What chance do young, impressionable minds have when faith based ideology is pushed on them at such a crucial age?

This brings me to Head Teacher of St Andrew’s CE Primary School, Tina Wilkinson:


Ignorance regarding the scientific definition of ‘theory’ is not uncommon, however you would expect better from an academic. Yes, ‘Theory’ in the common vernacular means ‘best guess, or hunch’. Evolution is Science however, meaning scientific definitions apply:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.1

Here is a simpler explanation that some of her students may have seen:

As for the claim that the bible is better supported than evolution? I look forward to Mrs Wilkinson submitting her paper on the matter to Nobel. Is it too late to nominate her image for the 20 pound note?

It’s easy to sneer rather than contribute of course, so with the School’s permission, I offer to start a crowd funding campaign to fund a field trip to the National History Museum for the young minds at St Andrew’s. What say you Mrs Wilkinson?

Stephen Knight is host of The #GSPodcast. You can listen to The Godless Spellchecker Podcast here, and support it by becoming a patron here.

  1. Definition Of Theory, National Academy Of Sciences


  • Sickening ignorance from a 21st century educator. She should be sacked. I’ll chip in a tenner to the cause.

  • Evolution is Science however, meaning scientific definitions apply:

    Your definition from the NAS is actually “political” (aimed at the usage “theory of evolution”) rather than being totally correct. A better answer is that in science the word “theory” itself carries no connotation either way as to whether the theory is correct or proven.

    For example, we talk of “Newton’s theory of gravity”, even though we know it is inaccurate and has been superseded by Einstein’s theory.

    Or we talk about “string theory”, even though it is speculative and very far from tested or confirmed.

    The truth is that scientists don’t place much store by this sort of thing, and use the term “theory” to mean “set of ideas” without connotations as to their correctness.

    • In reality evolution is a fact. The “theory” part should be applied to the mechanism – natural selection.

      • Of course it’s not “fact”. You don’t know any better than anyone else. If you want a word for it that actually fits, it is “dogma”. I’d also note that she doesn’t say there is more evidence for Creation; she says there is more evidence for the Bible. And each time we look hard we do find evidence for Jesus, for a flood, for Jewish exile, the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, the diaspora. Try having this argument out with an Orthodox Jew and see where you get in telling them their life is based on a fiction.

        • Stephen Knight

          Can you please tell me what you understand the word ‘fact’ to mean?

          Science is peer-reviewed observation that adjusts itself based on new information. How can that be dogma?

          Please point me in the direction of such a Jew and I’d be happy to. The truth remains what it is despite what people believe, or how it makes them feel.

          And what evidence for Jesus? Name some please.

        • Actually, her claim is that there is more evidence the bible is “true.” Is that the whole book? Or just parts? Or just the parts people like you and her like more than the others? So, a snake talked to a person and caused humans to fall out of favor with god? There was a flood, and some guy built a boat big enough to put two of every animal in the world on it? A virgin gave birth, and you think Evolution is unlikely? David had a woman’s husband killed so he could sleep with her, and this made him one of god’s favs? Oh wait–I actually like that one and hope it’s true.

        • Someone ought to gently break the news to Thomas that his own life is based on fiction…

        • On the one side we have the Bible – yes a single source of some very partisan history concering a small middle-eastern tribe, mixed with a lot of myths and legends, many borrowed from earlier cultures : any honest EDUCATED Orthodox Jew would admit to that.
          Set against that we have thousands of man-years of authenticated peer-reviewed scientific work across multiple disciplines (not just biology) which prove evolution and the mechanism of natural selection.
          Evolution is as much a FACT as is the germ theory of medicine. Or are you still going with that “possession by evil spirits” version?

        • The world’s universities have dozens of department of evolutionary biology and other disciplines with ‘evolutionary’ in their names. What do you imagine all those undergrads, post grads and PhDs do all day?

        • “And each time we look hard we do find evidence for Jesus”

          Apart from using the bible, where is the evidence that you have found?

    • It’s almost as if you didn’t watch the video. Even scientists sometimes speak using the vernacular. Newton’s theory of gravity will always be Newton’s theory of gravity because it was Newton’s theory of gravity. However, Newton’s theory of gravity is not the current theory of gravity.

    • Unfortunately I’ve been unable to find a quote from Brian Greene regarding String Theory but I’m confident he himself prefers the word “hypothesis”. String Theory is a theory in the mathematical sense (it’s grounded in mathematics) but a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

      • Newton’s theory of gravity is not the current theory of gravity.

        Newton’s theory is *a* theory of gravity today; Einstein’s is another; MOND is a third.

        String Theory is a theory in the mathematical sense (it’s grounded in mathematics) but a hypothesis in the scientific sense.

        The point is that scientists largely don’t care about these distinctions. They use the term “theory” without connotations as to its correctness. These distinctions are invented for talking to people about creationism, rather than being how scientists actually use the terms.

        • Newton’s theory is demonstrably wrong and so is no longer a theory in the scientific sense. It is, however, a useful approximation.

          The point is that scientists *do* care about the distinction (which is why science papers use the word “hypothesis” where popular science writers might often use the word “theory”) but rarely bother when discussing science with lay people. I think this discussion demonstrates why they should make the distinction in all circumstances.

  • breaking the cycle where children are indoctrinated from young is a hard one to break;
    if as adults we were missing at a party, looking for fairies at the bottom of the garden,
    we’d probably be asked to leave, but somehow religion has it’s own agenda.
    i will be one of the first to donate to this campaign to help the kids wonder at the science
    of what is, our natural world. kudos Stephen.

  • I taught science in a ‘Christian’ secondary school. We had Biology teachers spouting ‘evolution is just a theory’ nonsense. Another insisted ID was on the curriculum as an alternative (it’s not). We even had 2 young earth creationists at one point one of whom was a chemistry specialist. At times I despaired. These morons were charged with teaching science. I couldn’t cope in the end. The state of education in UK is not great. This despite many dedicated, hard working teachers.

  • Crikey, she needs a copy of my book. (Actually, given her religious blinkers, she’d probably ignore it.) But if she can read a book about the evidence and still make that dumb claim, she should be ignored or mocked.

    • How about sacking her and hiring an educator. Not nearly as bad as in USA, but was shocked that this woman was a Headmaster here in UK. Its time to get all religion out of any involvement with educating our children. We need them as smart as possible to get us all out of the mess that we are currently making of the world.

  • I read the whole thread and comments. It was exhausting… Can’t take one more “it’s just a theory” argument. It is willful ignorance. Keep fighting the good fight guys.

    • It is more than willful ignorance she is deliberately telling herself she does not know what a scientific theory is, she will have been told many times exactly what a scientific theory is. It is a delusion and as such she is suffering from mental illness.

  • I would contribute.

  • And where one asks are the school governors and local inspectors? She should be sacked for being incompetent and not fit to be a teacher let alone lead a school. Bring on their next Ofsted inspection as hopefully she should be outed.

  • A CofE school; but the CofE has accepted the fact of evolution for years

  • I just read their Ofsted report from 2013. Christina Wilkinson was head even then, and a part of the report says:
    “Pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is good. Pupils are respectful and work well together. Their spiritual development is promoted well through assemblies and an effective multi-faith curriculum which enhances pupils’ understanding of the major world faiths.”

    This indicates to me that even if she is a religious nut it doesn’t affect the teachings on the school, unless this has changed since the inspection.

  • Pingback: An Open Letter To St Andrew’s Primary School | Godless Spellchecker's Blog

  • The problem with the Godless Spellchecker definitional claim above is that neither abiogenesis, nor the macro-emergence of organisms by DARWINIAN mechanisms (natural selection operating on EXISTING gene pools) are “acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.” Hence, if “evolution” is meant in that SENSE, then it remains in the category of theory, not empirical fact. Unfortunately, the term ‘evolution’ has become so ambiguous and misused that arguments often result in a morass of semantic circularity.

  • Pingback: Social media excoriates British teacher for claiming there’s more evidence for the truth of the Bible than of evolution « Why Evolution Is True

  • I’ve just written a blog post: “Once more on theory and law in science”, partially inspired by this article. 🙂

What do you think? Leave some comments!