http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/BigMiscon.HTM

I've just finished reading this page, which matched rather well against my current thinking. It comes from the scientific side and, like Pratchett's "Darwin's Watch", aims to help those who are arguing against religious literalists. I believe there are some of those here, so it might be interesting :-).

It's not about specific arguments. It's a very high level attempt to give advice on how to argue this case. Specifically, you can't argue effectively without knowing your enemy, and the page claims that many people who e.g. argue for evolution don't fully understand the people they're arguing against.

It stuck in my mind because of one of the conclusions I share with the author: that if you want to argue this case effectively, you're going to have to put a fair amount of effort in. My current personal mindset I referred to earlier is that I honestly can't be bothered - it was fun reading SilverZero's eloquent defence of his literalism, but it's exhausting to challenge him and I don't expect to be able to change his mind. The most I'd be willing to do at the moment is point people at Pratchett's Science of the Discworld (1, 2 & 3), which are literally split half and half between entertainment and genteel but lucid explanations of Science.

At this point I want to tell people not to flame each other in my thread. Unfortunately I don't think this is actually possible without offending someone enough that they start a flamewar anyway (yay, paradox). So I'll just say that my atheist sole received a Christian education, so I love you whatever you think. While the page above appears to avoid namecalling, it was only written for the anti-literalist side. If you do want to join in from the other side, please follow his example and make an effort to stay off the bad words.

It's long and the outline (and content) isn't as clear as it should be. It spoke to me so I'll summarise it here, in a follow-up post for your quoting convenience.