Author Topic: Grand Canyon Controversy  (Read 2269 times)

BryanP

  • friendly hermit
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,808
Grand Canyon Controversy
« on: December 29, 2006, 07:05:09 AM »
You can't make this stuff up. 

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

Quote
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release (www.peer.org)

For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WONT SAY  Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Washington, DC  Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology, stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is no comment.

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item  the creationist book.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on Interpretation and Education (Directors Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.

As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan, Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.
"Inaccurately attributed quotes are the bane of the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,653
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2006, 07:46:41 AM »
"Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan"

Hum.

I'll have to look for that.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Mannlicher

  • Grumpy Old Gator
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,435
  • The Bonnie Blue
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2006, 07:53:09 AM »
for some reason, my BS meter pegs when I see a news release by a group like this

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

This has all the ear marks of a bunch of whack jobs with an agenda.


Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,511
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2006, 08:02:50 AM »
Let's not be silly.  There's no reason the "Canyon Officials" or whoever they are, can't speculate on the age of the canyon according to various theories.  I doubt they hesitate to do so, "Bush administration appointees" notwithstanding. 

On the other hand, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to keep this book out of the gift-shop.  If it's about the canyon, and there's a market for it, why not sell it?  Or do we want the government to specifically prohibit certain religious points of view from being expressed?  There is no way selling one religious book out of fifty non-religious books can violate the First Amendment.  But pushing only those books that contradict religious beliefs, when there's a good book that gives an opposite view?  Yeah, that could be a problem.

Quote
In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology, stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.
  Utter nonsense.  If you believe in evolution et al, go ahead.  But if you're going to criticize the creationists, at least find out what we believe first.  We believe in geology, we just interpret the evidence differently. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,653
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2006, 08:17:56 AM »
"This has all the ear marks of a bunch of whack jobs with an agenda."

And that's different from any other directed advocacy group.... how?
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

crt360

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,206
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2006, 09:53:55 AM »
I thought it was created on the 13th day . . . by God's own mighty hand (or was it just a finger?).

Geologists, what do they know?

I'd like to read the book just to see how anyone could possibly conclude that the Grand Canyon was a result of Noah's flood.

Alright, where's the smart ass smiley when I need one?  smiley
For entertainment purposes only.

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,899
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2006, 10:03:49 AM »
The way my pastor interpreted Biblical creation, the heavens and the earth are not 6000 years old.  The 6 days were simply a restoration of the earth.  So I don't really care how the Grand Canyon was created.  Smiley
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2006, 11:47:30 AM »
That's funny, I always thought it was done by Paul Bunyan dragging his axe away behind him dejectedly because he'd been beaten by a machine. You just can't believe ANYTHING anymore. Geez...
Avoid cliches like the plague!

SkunkApe

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2006, 03:09:15 PM »
The Grand Canyon was created by one of Roosevelt's Civil Works Administrations programs.  Depression-era unemployed were hired to dig it.  If God had a hand in that, so be it.  But it weren't no fllod involved, just sweat.

BakerMikeRomeo

  • Guest
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2006, 07:47:58 PM »
I say we dig up the Appalachian Mountains and use them to fill in the Grand Canyon so everyone will shut up about it.

~GnSx

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,187
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2006, 11:55:30 PM »
the only  Grand Canyon Controversy I am interested in is the one where they tell me the 2nd Amendment does not apply.
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

cosine

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,734
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2007, 05:32:55 AM »
Andy

RadioFreeSeaLab

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,200
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2007, 06:43:01 AM »
Quote
Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false. Callers were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees  or by anyone else  to withhold scientific information...

El Tejon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,641
    • http://www.kirkfreemanlaw.com
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2007, 06:48:34 AM »
Gunny, that's nothing short of brilliant!  We eliminate poverty in the hills of West Virginia, Virginia and North Cackalacky and we rid ourselves of a hazard to children--that gully in GWR.

APS amazes me. grin
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,511
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Grand Canyon Controversy
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2007, 08:48:17 AM »

See, I told you so!   grin grin grin
Let's not be silly.  There's no reason the "Canyon Officials" or whoever they are, can't speculate on the age of the canyon according to various theories.  I doubt they hesitate to do so, "Bush administration appointees" notwithstanding. 

From the original post introducing the bogus article:

You can't make this stuff up. 

Boy, that's ironic.   grin grin  grin  grin
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife