There are, however, many different theories of creation. The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.
The solution is to teach intelligent design, in which the identity and actions of the creator or creators are sufficiently vaguely referenced, that few would find ID objectionable.
Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?
The school board, which in turn is elected by the community. First amendment, Schmirst amendment.
I can assure you that people who are predominately of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid origin do exist. I'm not sure what the point of denying that would be.
I use it [the term racist] to describe the prejudice against someone who belongs to a different ethnic group than your own.
So you believe that Christians, which would include Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Arabs, and Asians are an ethnic group, while Muslims who would include those same peoples in different ratios constitute yet another ethnic group.
I think your use of the term "race" to refer to religious beliefs is a gross misuse of the English language. You were rightly called on it. Religious discrimination isn't racism.
Sorry, but I have to call you out on this one. Race is an arbitrary classification and as such, does not exist as a classification with any scientific value.
I never claimed that race had any scientific value or that it wasn't arbitrary. But whatever little meaning or import "race" has, doesn't make religious identification either a race or an ethnic group.
It appears to me to be a positive statement that racial classifications do exist.
The classifications do exist. Just because they are arbitrary and have little scientific meaning does not mean that the classifications are non existent. Current racial classifications fall roughly along the lines of descent from the now discredited racial classes I mentioned above.
People in the US self-identify themselves as belonging to one race or another regardless of the advantages or disadvantages of doing so, and that the rest of us respect those self-identifications as long as they pass the laugh test.
The four distinct ethnic groups of old have disappeared long ago. This is mainly because of transportation and the mixing of the various genetic pools of the four groups.
Race certainly has very little to do with nationality. I'm not sure why you even bring up where your ancestors come from.
I don't care what your genes look like or even what you look like. I agree that racial groupings have only very little to do with genetics. The fact that the groupings are not scientifically defined is pretty much meaningless too. Race is a poorly defined classification that we might be better off without, but it still matters at least in this country (USA).
I do agree with you on one point, however. I completely disagree with the use of nuclear power for energy and weapons production.
My handle refers to nuclear weapons only. I've got no problem with safe, peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Also, I wouldn't spend to much more time arguing with Taz. His post was meant to be a parody. Apparently he's been suspended for fooling around once too often.
Anyone can look up words in the dictionary. But someone who is carrying out a sincere discussion knows that not all of the definitions (and I note in passing that you did not include all of the definitions from your source) are applicable.
For example, under definition 2b, boxing is a science. Is that really what under discussion here? Are we really saying that the pugilistic arts should be taught in science class rather than in PE?
Definition 3a is closest to what we call science. It is a bit circular because it does rely on knowing what the scientific method. But that's easily cured by finding out what the scientific method is.
You can expect that scientists will rigorously defend the proposition that their work fits under the appropriate definition, and won't be the least bit concerned about the other meanings for science.
Is the Scientific method used when determining what a "transitional" fossil is? How about Puncuated equllibrium? Nope, just assumptions. THAT's what science is when it comes to TOE and the "Big Bang". 100% assumptions. It must be nice to use Natural Seclection(which happens) and the force behind TOE and not have to prove that it actually leads to animals changing into completly different species of animals. Yes, a different KIND of animal. All we observe is the finch beaks as the best example. Different beaks not different kinds. THAT'S Natural Selection.
Hopefully if you stick around a bit, you'll participate in some discussions here the evidence is discussed. You probably won't change your mind, but you might change your belief that scientists are just quacks even if you still know they are wrong.