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

By: Stephen Knight

Stephen Knight — Fri, 09 Dec 2016 15:29:51 +0000

*You’re

By: Coel

Coel — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:05:57 +0000

I've just written a blog post: ``Once more on theory and law in science'', partially inspired by this article. :-)

By: john

john — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 18:57:18 +0000

In reply to whyevolutionistrue. 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.

By: john

john — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:24:59 +0000

In reply to christianthomas1. "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?

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

Wed, 03 Feb 2016 15:00:20 +0000

[…] incident was reported on January 26 by the Godless Spellchecker: the head teacher of a British faith school, one Christina Wilkinson of St. Andrews Church of […]

By: PAUL HANSEN

PAUL HANSEN — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 19:08:30 +0000

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.

By: sdc395

sdc395 — Fri, 29 Jan 2016 03:48:23 +0000

In reply to Coel.

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.

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

Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:18:34 +0000

[…] this week, I blogged about some concerning public comments made by the Head Teacher of St. Andrew’s Primary School in Accrington, UK regarding evolution and […]

By: Steven Bower

Steven Bower — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 08:20:32 +0000

In reply to christianthomas1. 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?

By: Bjorn

Bjorn — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:29:08 +0000

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.