National Park Service re-orders creationist history of Grand Canyon

[JSFolk]

http://www.ems.org/rls/2004/02/26/national_park_se.html

Washington, DC — The leadership of the National Park Service is ignoring calls by its own senior scientists to withdraw approval for a creationist book now being sold in park facilities, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Instead, the book, which claims that the Grand Canyon is only 6,000 years old, has been re-ordered and is being marketed on the web as "natural history."

[Oleron]

Is this a 'politically correct' kind of decision? Must we always put the woo-woo side of the argument when we tell people how these natural wonders were formed?
In Ireland we have the, rather less impressive, Giants Causeway. The structure was formed by lava cooling but the legend states it was a giant who built it. Hopefully no-one actually believes such a preposterous notion but the books are popular at the visitors centre. I suppose the difference with the Grand Canyon is that there really are people out there that believe God carved it out of a ditch or whatever.
If science is forced to allow these kind of books into their midst (as though they had a legitimate right to be there), why aren't churches forced to sell Richard Dawkins books alongside their tracts?
Anyway, I heard it was formed by a Scotsman dropping a penny down a rabbit hole..

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Oleron

In Ireland we have the, rather less impressive, Giants Causeway. The structure was formed by lava cooling but the legend states it was a giant who built it. Hopefully no-one actually believes such a preposterous notion but the books are popular at the visitors centre. I suppose the difference with the Grand Canyon is that there really are people out there that believe God carved it out of a ditch or whatever.

Ahhh..that would be Finn McCool. Didn't he also create the Isle of Mann from a scoop of earth, and the hollow filled in to become Lough Neagh? Maybe we should demand that the Finn McCool theory of geological formation be taught alongside the "evilutionist" theory in schools.

Actually in the link it says that the Grand Canyon book is being marketed as "natural history," which I guess is what makes it so bad. If it's sold as mythology, as it should be, then IMO that's okay. But of couse that would offend the fundamentalists...

But anyway, you make a very good point. If a group came along that thought that a giant actually bulit the Giant's Causeway, would we have to pander to them as well?

[fishbob]

Yeah, well in the US, Paul Bunyan dragged some kind of logging tool across the desert and scratched out the Grand Canyon. Which is, in my opinion, just as believable as the creationist version and a lot more entertaining.

[fishbob]

A description of the creationist book from the link:
Laden with beautiful photographs coupled with Biblical quotes, this book is a "creationist" view of how the Grand Canyon came to be. Compiled by a Colorado River guide, its 104 pages include 23 essays by some of the leading modern-day theologians & creationists, the majority of whom have PhDs in such fields as geology, paleontolgy, geophysics, biology or biochemistry. In hardback.

BS, BS, BS, BS. Political pandering and BS.

Contacts for Grand Canyon, also from the link:

(800) 858-2808 [phone]

(928) 638-2484 [fax]

gcassociation@grandcanyon.org

[fishbob]

Sorry folks, I feel like ranting today. The text of the e-mail I just sent is shown below.

Your online bookstore is offering this:

GRAND CANYON: A DIFFERENT VIEW
Tom Vail
$16.95

I would not mind if it were labeled as fiction or fable. But instead, the book is described as:

"Laden with beautiful photographs coupled with Biblical quotes, this book is a "creationist" view of how the Grand Canyon came to be. Compiled by a Colorado River guide, its 104 pages include 23 essays by some of the leading modern-day theologians & creationists, the majority of whom have PhDs in such fields as geology, paleontolgy, geophysics, biology or biochemistry. In hardback. "

This makes as much sense as describing the Paul Bunyan version of creating the Grand Canyon as scientifically valid.

I object to the use of my tax dollars supporting this dangerous and irresponsible practice of presenting fiction as fact. Your organization has a duty to avoid pandering to the desires of fringe wackos, even if they do have political support.

If this is not clear, or if you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely:

my real name
my real phone number

PS - you misspelled Paleontology in the advertisement.

[Ladyhawk]

Fishbob;

If the book is advertised specifically as a "creationists" view, what's the problem? Is it that the NPS refuses to carry a book that is an 'evolutionist's' view? If so, I agree whole-heartedly with you. The fact that it's being marketed on the web as "natural history' is no more than mere labeling. Doesn't bother me.

Most of the 'tourists' who buy this book are just that; standing on the rim, looking down . Hopefully, anyone who walks its floor for any amount of distance ( I did...11 miles worth) and gets the ground view will quickly discern for themselves that it was more than a fairy tale and 6000 years of wind that formed this beautiful place!

[Silicon]

I'm not sure where evolutionists would have a view on the formation of the Grand Canyon.


I don't think Darwin addressed the effects of erosion in "The Origin of Species".

[fishbob]

The fact that it's being marketed on the web as "natural history' is no more than mere labeling. Doesn't bother me. The fact that it's being marketed on the web as "natural history' is exactly the problem. It is not natural and not history. It is fiction and fable.

You may have noticed, tt does bother me.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by fishbob
Yeah, well in the US, Paul Bunyan dragged some kind of logging tool across the desert and scratched out the Grand Canyon. Which is, in my opinion, just as believable as the creationist version and a lot more entertaining.

didn't he dig it as a toilet for Babe the Blue Ox to relief himself in? ;)

[pupdog]

Even Dan Rather commented on this tonight (27 Feb). He did make a remark linking YEC at the Grand Canyon to Bush's faith-based initiatives and pandering to the religious right.

[waitew]

Hey what's your problem?Have you got a problem with people being exposed to ideas different than your own?Let them hear all ideas & make up their own minds.If you got a problem with that then you have something to hide>>...serious issues.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Silicon
I'm not sure where evolutionists would have a view on the formation of the Grand Canyon.


Young earth creationists reject most of geology as well as evolution. They also have some problems with astronomy.

[fishbob]

Hey what's your problem?Have you got a problem with people being exposed to ideas different than your own?Let them hear all ideas & make up their own minds. You talkin' to me?

I want people to be exposed to different ideas, as long as facts are presented as facts and fiction is presented as fiction.

You can't make valid decisions based on invalid information.

As they say at Faber College, Knowledge is Good.

[fishbob]

Hey, I got a response to my e-mail.
--------------------------------------------
Mr. 'fishbob's real name'

As a point of clarification, we do not receive federal funding, we are a private non-profit corporation that supports education and science at Grand Canyon National Park.

We do not support or promote the creationist position developed in this text, we simply brought it into our product mix as an alternative viewpoint. We carry several diverse viewpoints on canyon formation, including several from a native American perspective.

Our association promotes science, we lecture about science, we publish science and to date we have donated more that $20 million in support of that goal. Proceeds from the sale of this book along with the proceeds from the sale of the other 800 titles that we carry will continue to support additional scientific research within the park.

real name
Executive Director
Grand Canyon Association
-------------------------------------------

So, still a bit grumpy from my weekend rant, I sent this reply:

--------------------------------------------

Mr. real name,

I appreciate your reply.

I notice that GRAND CANYON: A DIFFERENT VIEW is sort of hidden in the natural history section of your online bookstore. It is listed as "Item 0 of 44" and natural history is the only section of your catalog with 44 items. It does not show up in a listing of natural history, which starts with item 1 of 44. The only way I can find it is with the View All Titles selection.

The fact that GRAND CANYON: A DIFFERENT VIEW is being marketed on the web as "natural history' is bothersome. It is not natural and not history. The fact that the selection is hidden is bothersome. While it is possible that this placement of the book is accidental, more likely is deliberate intent to market fable and mythology as natural history to those privy to the secret hiding place.

You might want to investigate this situation. If you find anything, please let me know.

Thanks
fishbob's real name
------------------------------------------

More if it develops.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by fishbob
Hey, I got a response to my e-mail.
--------------------------------------------
Proceeds from the sale of this book along with the proceeds from the sale of the other 800 titles that we carry will continue to support additional scientific research within the park.

I rather like the irony that proceeds from the sale of the book are funding scientific research. This probably hasn't even occurred to the author or the publisher.

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Psi Baba

I rather like the irony that proceeds from the sale of the book are funding scientific research. This probably hasn't even occurred to the author or the publisher.

And as long as he makes his own buck, do you really think he will care?

[fishbob]

E-mail today from director of the Grand Canyon Foundation:
Thank you for the heads up. I have requested that this title be listed in the "scenic" section only and that it should have no reference to natural history.

The guy seems reasonable. I guess I can't rant anymore. However, I am still concerned that dumping a creationist tract in the "scenic" section is any better than hiding it in natural history. Any suggestions?

[pupdog]

Fantasy section?
or
Pornography section?

[nemo]

They should have a Grand Canyon Mythology section and list it along with the Native American fables.
:)

[JSFolk]

Well, heck! That's good news! I just wanted to sit back in my chair and b*tch about it!

:D

[Oleron]

Nice one FishBob.:alc:

As for an appropriate section for the book, how about giving them away free with the 'I've been to the Grand Canyon and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!' shirts.

I reckon whoever buys those might enjoy the book (as long as it's got lots of pictures).