quote:

---

The Grand Canyon is not a few thousand years old

Long time readers may recall a story I first started following three years ago, in January 2004, about a controversial religious book approved for sale at the Grand Canyon. Unfortunately, the issue still isn't resolved.

First, a little background. In August 2003, the National Park Service approved a creationist text, “Grand Canyon: A Different View,” to share bookshelves with legitimate books at park bookstores and museums. In this case, the “different view” meant an unscientific approach, touting a literal reading of scripture to explain the Canyon's formation. The book argues, for example, “[A]ccording to a biblical time scale, [the Canyon] can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old.”

The decision to promote the book didn't go over well. Scientists who work at the Grand Canyon were outraged, as was the academic community — the American Geological Institute and seven geo-science organizations sent letters to the park and agency officials asking that the book be removed. Their objections were rebuffed; the book stayed.

Three years later, the problem appears to be slightly worse.

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.'”

The National Park Service promised a high-level policy review of the issue three years ago. Apparently, that never occurred. What a surprise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy
The religious fundalmentalists be damned! If the truth is offensive, then let 'em be offended! Perhaps, with a change in government and in a year or two, Grand Canyon: A Different View will be consigned to that lunatic rubbish heap containing such works as Mein Kamph, and anything by Ann Coulter and L. Ron Hubbard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy
The religious fundalmentalists be damned! If the truth is offensive, then let 'em be offended! Perhaps, with a change in government and in a year or two, Grand Canyon: A Different View will be consigned to that lunatic rubbish heap containing such works as Mein Kamph, and anything by Ann Coulter and L. Ron Hubbard.

---

In the meantime you'll have to endure being the laughing stock of the entire civilised world.

I don't envy you.

---

quote:

---

who would be offended by Parks employees saying the Grand Canyon is millions of years old is fairly small.

---

quote:

---

God, Geology, and the Grand Canyon

Talk about a story that will make a reporter drool.

Allegations from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility about what Park Service rangers can and can't say about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon arrived like a late Christmas present during the notoriously news-dead week between Christmas and New Year's.

"How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say," crowed the headline pasted atop the group's press release that was distributed Dec. 28. If that wasn't enough to attract attention, the sub-head would: "Orders to Cater to Creationists Make National Park Service Agnostic on Geology."

Then, to truly set the hook, the first sentence of PEER's release stated that: "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."
This would be like shooting fish in a barrel to any reporter who likes to skewer the current administration. I was already rearranging my day to plunge into this baby.

But then a funny thing happened: I couldn't immediately confirm the gist of the release to my satisfaction. A few days later I stumbled across an even worse conclusion: It wasn't true.

---

quote:

---

A number of blogs have lambasted the National Park Service after Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) authored a press release claiming Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA) is under orders to "cater to creationists" and is not permitted to get an official estimate of the geologic age of the Grand Canyon.

I was skeptical, and after reading PEER's press release, I called the contact listed on the release. On January 3, I spoke with Executive Director Jeff Ruch who told me he talked with unnamed interpretive staff and park rangers. His complained mainly about lack of guidance for rangers on what to say when asked about the canyon's age. Ruch's comments seemed random and unfocused and his claims unsubstantiated. He focused on a book, Grand Canyon: A Different View, sold in the GRCA bookstore that offers a creationist view of the canyon's formation. Ruch stated that since 2003, GRCA has avoided releasing a draft from the geologic services division (I'm not aware of such a division) that gives guidance to park rangers. Incidentally, GRCA started selling the aforementioned book in 2003.

I received an email from GRCA staff which contained the NPS's official response. It reads in part,

"If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer. The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet. The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim."
[Link the entire response.]

Ruch clearly doesn't want the Grand Canyon Association (GCA), a private, non-profit organization, to carry the book and is upset with the NPS for approving its sale. I think he has fabricated wild claims that CRCA is not allowed to give an age for the canyon and won't allow interpretive rangers to answer the question. He's done this to draw attention to the book's sale, which he opposes......

---