My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

You keep using the words "race" and "ethnic" to describe adherents to certain religions. I do not think that those words mean what you think they mean.

As has been pointed out, "race" is an inexact, rather meaningless term that has been used to describe individuals with certain ancestries and certain superficial physical features. People still use the terms "white" or "negro" or "Caucasian" as if they referred to something real, and often apply those classifications to different social groups. However, genetics doesn't support this.

"Ethnic" doesn't apply when discussing religion either. The term's meaning can overlap somewhat and is less arbitrary than "race," but they are not the same thing. "Ethnic" can more legitimately be used to describe people with a common culture, language and ancestry.

Religious labels transcend these categories, though again, there can be some overlap. You can have both Pacific Rim and Middle Eastern Christians, African and Indonesian Muslims, or Ethiopian and South German Jews.

I believe the term you want is "prejudice" or perhaps "favoritism."

Sorry to nitpick, but it can never hurt an argument to strive for precision.

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

I went through a couple of lists of logical fallacies, and can't find a name for this one. I therefore move that Percy be officially recognised as the identifier of the "argumentum ad derisium" fallacy.

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Inserted appropriate quote.

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

Chuck, I am going to do you a favor and pass on an important life lesson.

I went to graduate school a number of years ago to get a Masters degree, and as graduation approached I realized that I was sadly deficient in my knowledge of one of the primary topics in my field of study. (I suspect that I'm not the frist person to earn an advanced degree and leave only aware of how much he doesn't know.) So I went to one of my professors - a real genius in the field, if at times a bit of a prick - and asked him if he'd be willing to let me consult with him sometimes as I attempted to make up for what I hadn't learned so far. He took me over to a rack of various handouts, pulled out one that he'd written listing about 30 or so major texts in the field, most of them huge reference works, with the most important highlighted, and said, "Here. Read these and then you'll be able to ask me intelligent questions."

Ignorance is a terrible thing, but it does have a cure. Here's a much smaller list of books. You don't even have to read all of them. Pick one and read it. Really read it. Then you'll much more able to have an intellient discussion about these things.

After all, I wouln't jump into an archeology forum and start blasting the participants with claims that aliens built the pyramids and the Chinese discovered electricity in the 3rd century BCE, and that the guys who'd been working in the fields for decades didn't know what they were talking about. As the man said in the movie Hamburger Hill: "If you want to survive here, you will listen to people who know." (Hope I got that quote right.) I'm sure that there are plenty more titles that others can also suggest.

Now listen:

Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design by Richard Dawkins (Yes, him - Lord High Satan of Atheism. Don't be afraid.)

Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin

Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution by Nick Lane

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

Gladly. I just put a copy of The Dawkins Delusion on hold with my local library. I will warn you, I have so far been quite unimpressed with the general quality of Christian apologetics I've read (among others: Lee Strobel, Paul Copan, and don't get me started about William Lane Craig), but I will give it a fair reading. I'll suggest that Why Evolution is True might be a better place to start for you, but as you wish.

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

As Percy points out in Message 114:

Teaching what's "wrong" with the evolutionary aspect of biological science isn't at all the same thing as teaching what creationism is about, in just the same way as teaching art students what's "wrong" with Renaissance painting isn't the same thing as teaching them about cubism or performance art.

So for the sake of furthering this discussion, could you please provide some sort of outline or list of specific topics about creationism that you think should be taught in the biology classroom?

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill