I know scientist place humans in the Animal Kingdom, under the order primates.
So how do creationists place Humans? Do the consider Humans to have their own “Kingdom”?
And any dopers who do not like the fact that humans are under the order primates? I know a few students at my vet school, who do not appreciate this at all.
Creationist taxonomy is itself a contradiction in terms. If they call Australopithecus a tall chimpanzee, there really is no point discussing taxonomy with them any further.
[creationist hat ON]
This evolution stuff contradicts the Holy Bible and there is no evidence for it.
Plus god-hating commie scientists call us ‘homo sapiens’. We are not gay and not stupid. This proves evolution is wrong.
[creationist hat OFF]
[QUOTE=BluePitbull]
I know scientist place humans in the Animal Kingdom, under the order primates.
QUOTE]
Firstly, IANACTG (I Am Not A Creationist, Thank God).
However, my understanding tis that Creationists do not classify humans anywhere in the animal kingdom. That’s part and parcel of the “humans were uniquely created by God” concept that drives Creationism.
Frankly, if they do classify humans, I’d think it would be under the mineral kingdom, under dust or clay.
Sailboat
I’m guessing they classify them as humans.
Insofar as there’s such a thing as Creationist taxonomy, humans constitute a seperate “holobaramin” within the “apobaramin” of Primates.
Hmm. That’s similar to “not liking” the fact we don’t have wings, or that we only have two eyes rather than seven. It’s still a fact, dislike it as you will. 
Or is the objection just to the name “Primates”? Unfortunately, we’re stuck with that, as Linnaeus chose the far better name “Simia” for the smaller taxon of apes and monkeys, splitting off “Lemur” (and “Homo”, for religious rather than biological regions) into seperate families.
However, Linnaeus described two species in the genus Homo besides H. sapiens., which he called H. troglodytes (cave-dwelling man) and H. caudatus (tailed man). Since he did not cite type specimens, and his descriptions were based on second and third hand accounts, it is uncertain what exactly he was describing. *H. troglodytes * may have been the chimpanzee, or mythical; H. caudatus was evidently mythical.
Linnaeus recognized the order Primates for humans, apes, monkeys, and prosimians, but had three genera within it: Homo, Simia including both monkeys and apes (as well as the tarsier), and Lemur for several prosimians as well as flying lemurs. Linnaean genera are often very broad and equivalent to families or higher categories in modern taxonomy.
As an Orthodox Jew, I have always been taught that biologically, humans are classified with animals, primates, etc. However, that is because we were created to have similar structure, not because we have some common ancestor. Also, that humans are different in soul from all other animals.
Essentially, that classification is to reflect useful similarities, but does not necessarily imply evolution.
That creationist taxonomic scheme is little different from cladistics, only with different terminology. A “holobaramin” is essentially a monophyletic clade, a “monobaramin” is a paraphyletic clade, and an polybaramin is a polyphyletic assemblage. An “apobaramin” reads like a polyphyletic assemblage of monophyletic clades. The only major difference between the two taxonomic methods is that cladistics assumes common descent for all groups (that is, that a central “trunk”, uniting all the holobaraminic/monophyletic branches, exists), while baraminology assumes it only in certain instances (and rejects it in most others, e.g., as with humans). That, and cladistics only recognizes monophyletic clades as “natural”.
Note that Linnaean taxonomy is not at odds with baraminology, as Linnaeaus’ scheme was not based on an assumption of common descent in the first place.
Linnaeus was a creationist, although he did recognize that species were somewhat mutable. The Linnaean scheme itself does not assume any relationship by descent between the various categories, anymore than the classification of minerals according to composition and structure implies that relared forms descend from one another. There is no reason that a creationist would necessarily have to reject Linnaean taxonomy. However, the hierarchical nature of the Linnaean system did lead others to use it as evidence for evolution.
Linnaeus’ inclusion of additional species in the genus Homo besides H. sapiens would lead one to believe that he read nothing special into this genus. These other species could not be truly human, since they obviously could not have been descended from Adam and Eve, and would presumably have lacked souls.
A serious question - although this may be better in GD, now that the OP question has been answered.
Does baraminology (as a discipline within creationism as a whole) use the Bible as an input? In other words, does it procede by taking a particular Biblical reference to a “kind” of animal as a “baramin” by definition, then use biological data to decide whether this is a holo-, mono-, or apobaramin? Or does it classifiy species solely by reference to biology?
Based on the link you provided, yes:
(bolding mine)