So which creation myth do you want taught in UK schools science classes?

a reply ....nope, those who are not seeing are following a great deception placed on them by the Father....not quite predestination but close, huh!
it's a devils bargain thing ....we don't want to do a devils bargain two times...

a reply to: GBP/JPY

I'm sorry, I have no idea what message you are trying to convey here.

Aw, come on Christians, you were pretty vocal in the thread discussing the UK banning creation teachings in science classes, how about come here and explain how your creation myth is more believable than any of the myriad others from around the world?

Does your silence indicate that your creation myth has no more evidence to support it than Norse or Greek mythology?

There were a few folk passionate that creationism should be taught in UK schools, so I ask again, which particular creation myth exactly, and why?

So none of the religious groups can teach their pet theory in classes if they receive funding.

Secular and/or atheists can still teach their pet theory and receive funding.

Seems fair.

Lightning, Yahweh, Ahura-Maazda, Coyote, or any other beginning as a creator, is a "creation myth" until on is proven as fact.

a reply to: 200Plus

Oh stop with your silliness.
If there is any scrap of evidence to support a scientific theory then it can be taught in UK schools as such.
Creation myths from all religions and cultures do not have any supportive evidence so can only be taught as an 'awareness' exercise in social study lessons.

Do you champion the cause of any particular creation myth then?

a reply to: grainofsand

Aye, the Norse, from Ginnungagap we came and to it we'll return.

Besides it tells much better over a fire and pint of stout than lightning hitting a mud puddle.

a reply to: grainofsand

Ooo I think the tale of monkey from monkey magic should be taught.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Hahaha showing your age there mate!
...I am drawn to agreement though.

a reply to: grainofsand

Panspermia.

Lamarck's theories.

Morphic resonance.

Why not all theories that relate?

originally posted by: nonspecific
I think I will choose the ancient aliens theory if I may.

It is a perfect blend of history, mysticism and science.

My eight yeaar old son likes the idea as involves spaceships and cool gadgets, I think the kids would pay attention.

Timelords.

Dinosaurs on spaceships with time travel. Ultra cool!

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: 321Go
I don't quite understand the question, as we are banning creation myths (not just Genesis) from State sponsored schools. Why are you asking which should replace it?

No, you apparently misunderstand the whole thing.
Creationist myths are not banned from UK schools, they can still be taught as an awareness in social sciences lessons or whatever, they just cannot be taught in science lessons.

Now, I ask again, if we are going to teach any creation myths, which ones do we choose?
Do any of them have more evidence than the rest? Do we teach all of them?
...or just Christian ones, as the rabid believers on ATS seem to wish?

They are not allowed to be taught in Social Science classes. The only classes where they may be taught are Religious Education classes. That is the only exemption in the legislation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific
I think I will choose the ancient aliens theory if I may.

It is a perfect blend of history, mysticism and science.

My eight yeaar old son likes the idea as involves spaceships and cool gadgets, I think the kids would pay attention.

Timelords.

Dinosaurs on spaceships with time travel. Ultra cool!

Agreed, if we are going to teach"ideas" then why not ones that will encourage kids to think and be exited.

As long as we do not expect them to think they are the truth then I say go for it.

a reply to: chr0naut
No, that, is your invention alone, social science was an umbrella term, you know, sociology, psychology. No problems with religion theories being discussed there.
My late teen son didn't even have a lesson called religious education at state school, he learned about such unverifiable claims in a class called philosophy and applied ethics.

Perhaps check your facts first before making inaccurate assertions, creation theories are just banned fron the natural sciences, I assume you know the difference, or perhaps not lol

They should have a choose your own adventure creation myth book for kids.

Anyone else remember those books?



They could have all kinds of possible creations at the end of each possible story...

We'd be teaching the kids to be creative at least.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut
No, that, is your invention alone, social science was an umbrella term, you know, sociology, psychology. No problems with religion theories being discussed there.
My late teen son didn't even have a lesson called religious education at state school, he learned about such unverifiable claims in a class called philosophy and applied ethics.

Perhaps check your facts first before making inaccurate assertions, creation theories are just banned fron the natural sciences, I assume you know the difference, or perhaps not lol

Here is an excerpt from the legislation itself, as you can see, it applies to all subjects except "Religious Education":

" 23E) The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies. They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.

23F) ‘Creationism’, for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.

23G) The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

23H) The Secretary of State acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory."

a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, pretty much as I explained it in brief, the 'religious education' can be a philosophy, sociology, psychology, or theosophy class.
You clearly either do not understand the legislation or are just trolling, and rather poorly at that.

...perhaps look into the official interpretation of the law next time before pretending to understand it. You make yourself appear foolish.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, pretty much as I explained it in brief, the 'religious education' can be a philosophy, sociology, psychology, or theosophy class.
You clearly either do not understand the legislation or are just trolling, and rather poorly at that.

...perhaps look into the official interpretation of the law next time before pretending to understand it. You make yourself appear foolish.

You said that Creation was "just banned from the Natural Sciences", however the legislation says it is banned from "teaching' with the exception of Religious Education classes, where it is still banned from being taught as an alternative to scientific theory (Clause 23H).

Anyway, we've gone off topic. I'll not respond to furtherance of this thread about what the legislation does, or does not, cover.