more on Grand Canyon National Park not permitted to give its geologic age (PEER)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Urs Hengartner <uhengart () cs uwaterloo ca>
Date: December 30, 2006 2:35:59 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Grand Canyon National Park not permitted to give  
its geologic age (PEER)
Reply-To: uhengart () cs uwaterloo ca

The title of the article and its first sentence are clearly misleading.
From the official website of the Grand Canyon National Park
(http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old):

"How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the
canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young
feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million
years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in
the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon
is very young."

Best,
 Urs


David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Paul Saffo <paul () saffo com>
> Date: December 30, 2006 12:31:46 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Grand Canyon National Park not permitted to give its geologic
> age (PEER)
>
> oh my...
> -p
>
> 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 WON’T 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 (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.”
>
> “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.”
>
> ###
>
> Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar
>
> View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist  
> book has
> occurred
>
> See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation
>
> 8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians,
> scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring  
> that park
> interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and  
> reflect
> current scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of
> geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The  
> interpretive and
> educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and  
> 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. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will  
> reflect
> the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology,
> geology,
> physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and
> educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious
> beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may  
> acknowledge or
> explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis
> added)
>
> Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew
>
> Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of
> “Faith-Based Parks”
>
> http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801


-------------------------------------------
<HR>
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org<BR>To manage your subscription, go to<BR>  <A 
HREF="http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip";>http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip</A><P>Archives at: <A 
HREF="http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/intere
Archives: [LIST_ARCHIVES_URL]
Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=1788750&user_secret=2262158c
Unsubscribe: http://v2.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?id=1788750-2262158c-x5x4fkpg
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com