Update on quarrel over age of Grand Canyon

In a January 16 press release, an organization called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is still complaining about the sale of a creationist book in stores in Grand Canyon National Park. PEER did not apologize for falsely charging that the National Park Service instructed the park's staff to not comment about the geologic age of the canyon.

The Jan. 16 PEER press release said,

“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”

"Evolutionary geologic forces"? What in the hell is that? And how does selling the book in privately-run stores imply "a government seal of approval"? Also, the PEER press release said that the NPS expressly denied endorsing the book:

The statement [by David Barna, NPS Chief of Public Affairs] adds, “Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old…We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content.”

The January 16 PEER press release said,

Why did the Park Service approve it for sale? Under agency rules, park officials are only to allow display materials of the highest accuracy and which support approved park interpretive themes in its bookstores.

Wrong -- NPS rules do not require that books in park stores support approved park interpretive themes. An earlier (Dec. 28) PEER press release said,

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s 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.”

The above quotation is a quote mine. The above quotation is followed immediately by the following statement in the NPS Director's Order #6 (Rule 8.4.2):

Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events.

Also, "Rule 9.4 Concessioners" of Director's Order #6 says,

The NPS will review concessions programs and written materials to ensure that the information they contain is accurate, appropriate, and related to park themes, applying the same standards used to evaluate NPS interpretive and educational services. (emphasis added)

So the sale of the book in park stores does not violate any NPS rules.

READ MORE

NPS "gag rule" about Grand Canyon's age was hoax

Earlier I reported that an organization called "Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility" (PEER) issued a recent press release claiming that the park staff at Grand Canyon National Park had been instructed to not comment about the geologic age of the canyon. This claim has now been exposed as a hoax -- see this and this.

The PEER press release said,

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 . . . .

. . . .“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.’”

PEER presented no firm evidence that the park "is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature" or that the NPS is "under orders to suspend its belief in geology."

Also, a letter from the PEER director to the National Park Service director, dated December 28, said,

. . . . Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists' "young earth" claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as "no comment" and referral of the reporter to NPS headquarters. (emphasis added)

According to the letter, the title of the "blocked publication" is "National Park Service Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion."

The PEER letter asks the NPS to remove the creationist book Grand Canyon: A Different View from sale at park bookstores and museums, even though the book has been removed from the science book sections at those locations (as noted here and here). At the same time, the PEER letter asks the NPS to release a "publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis." PEER is a hypocritical fascist organization.

PEER may be contacted here and here.

READ MORE

Quarrel over age of Grand Canyon

Update: NPS "gag rule" about the canyon's age has been exposed as a hoax.

A group calling itself "Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility" (PEER) reports,

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).

While I think that it is wrong to bar giving an official estimate of the geologic age of the canyon, I also think that it is wrong to request censorship of the book. PEER is no better than the fundies in this regard.

The PEER report also says,

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.

Good grief -- now they're saying that park bookstores are more like schoolrooms than like libraries. How can a bookstore and a schoolroom be compared? The visitors to a bookstore are not a captive audience. There is no "peer pressure" to buy or examine the creationist book.

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.

This information is not of much use without descriptions of the other 22 books and/or the reasons for rejecting them.

More information and discussion are at:

National Center for Science Education: here (gives a good history of the controversy) and here

PEER: here

Panda's Thumb: here

Pharyngula: here

Uncommon Descent: here

Question: In Zion National Park is a canyon called the Zion Narrows. It has vertical walls, is 16 miles long, up to 2000 feet deep, and at times only 20-30 feet wide. Anyone have any ideas as to how this canyon might have been formed by natural erosional forces?

Selling the book does not imply National Park Service endorsement -- otherwise the sale of a book by any bookstore would imply endorsement by the bookstore. BTW, there is a law that requires NPS Civil War battlefield sites to endorse and promote the idea that slavery was the primary if not the sole cause of secession and the Civil War. We shouldn't have government-endorsed versions of history (except that the events at a particular battlefield can be presented factually and objectively).

READ MORE