Bush administration at work!!!

Cool, they finally got it right..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jan 8 2007, 08:29 AM) [snapback]372405[/snapback]</div>

I took a tour of the Pit last week and the government tour guide when asked why there was such a big hole in the ground remarked that President Clinton was sitting and sleeping at the wheel! I thought that was unfair because he was actually standing in the Oval Office wide awake.

 

I'd chalk it up to urban legend to... but i'll be at the grand canyon later this year, and will certainly find out.

Also, it seems that the national park services does provide an answer to the question:

http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 8 2007, 10:08 AM) [snapback]372421[/snapback]</div>

This does seem to be real. In addition to the recent links Tony provided above, you can also find it here (dating from 2004). http://www.beliefnet.com/story/138/story_13843_1.html

Also coverd by Time in 2004: http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/...,783829,00.html

Frankly, I think it more likely the grand canyon was formed by the angry slap of a noodly appendage.

 

I have no doubt that the book exists, and that it may be for sale in the bookstore - what i'm arguing against is the idea that the NPS has instructed the tour guides not to answer questions regarding the Canyon's age.

 

Where I grew up, in South-Western Michigan, we always said the Grand Canyon was started when a Dutchman dropped a nickle down a gopher hole. That part of Michigan has a large Dutch population, who are commonly known to be very thrifty.

Tom

 

If you actually READ the article, it says "dispute over sales of a new book at Grand Canyon National Park". It says NOTHING about what the park rangers are permitted to say. Although I disagree vehemently with the "new earth" creationist theories, I also find everyone's exagerated over-reactions laughable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(keydiver @ Jan 8 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]372435[/snapback]</div>

The story appears to be cropping up again because after protests about this book in 2003, a review of the decision to sell the book was promised and has not yet occurred. Additionally, a brochure for park tour guides titled 'National Park Service Geologic Interpretive Program: Distinguishing Science from Religion' was put on indefinate hold.

From the Arizona Sun, Jan 2007: http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/163166
>>The guides should tell those visitors there is no valid scientific data to support the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, Ruch said, calling for the release of a 2002 Park Service pamphlet saying as much.
"In terms of the official position of the park as to whether the creationist claims have any merit, they're not allowed to say anything," Ruch said, citing complaints he had received from park interpretive staff members. "In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology." <<

Another source of this story recurring again is the following press release (EDIT: orginally posted by Tony above)
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

And a pretty cogent history of it from 2003 to present can be found at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007...on_1_4_2007.asp

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jan 8 2007, 06:03 AM) [snapback]372417[/snapback]</div>

There may be a grain of truth in it ... there is a book that is sold in the bookstores called "Grand Canyon, a Different View", written by a former river guide. The Wikipedia does have an article about the controversy, but I couldn't find any independent source (Wikipedia is "user written", so it occasionally has some errors in it). They do state that the book was moved from the geology section to the "Inspirational" section about a year after it appeared due to concerns expressed by geologists and educators. The bookstores are not government owned, however, as they are operated by a private foundation that leases the space from the NPS. CLICK HERE for the Wikipedia article, and CLICK HERE for a description of the book itself from the bookstore. You can also read about the educational foundation that runs the bookstores. It appears to be a straight-shooting educational foundation that probably doesn't make any value judgments about the books that appear in the Inspiration section (its been a number of years, but when I was last there, there were numerous books in that section written from what I guess would be called a New Age perspective, as well as some dealing with the traditional Native American beliefs, as well as some Christian devotional works.)

I can't find any reference to the prohibition about Rangers talking about it in anything authoritative; the closest you get is the PEER documents linked above. Snopes.com hasn't looked into it, and the park service hasn't commented, as far as I can tell. Wish I knew a Ranger!

 

Well, it looks like Dr. Berman and I were right on this one ... at least, if the official website for the National Park Service is any indication:

From http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

The educational materials they make available on the geology of the Grand Canyon can be found at http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/education/...LessonPlans.htm I did not open all the PDF files, but the "Age of the Earth" slide states the age at 4.6 billion years old, and the second one, "Oldest Rock at Grand Canyon" lists the rock's age at 1.8 billion years old.

I suspect this one was started because of the book controversy. The book was put in the science section in 2003, but moved to the inspiration section after protests in 2004 (according to the Wikipedia article I linked above). If the book is in with the other inspirational books, alongside the New Age, Native American and other inspirational works, I have no problem with it. It belongs there along with the books stating that the canyon was formed by the tears of a goddess lamenting the death of her son (or whatever).

I'm not sure where the "Park Rangers can't say" idea came from; perhaps they have been asked not to tell Hopi shaman that they are wasting their breath with their religious exercises, or that they cannot tell the First Creationist Church of Little Rock school kiddies about it out of some misplaced liberal sensitivity to religious traditions.

I suspect this is another one of those urban myths. Or, if I were a liberal around here, a lie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 9 2007, 02:42 AM) [snapback]372939[/snapback]</div>

It does look like there is only one source on the Park Rangers can't say -- PEER's executive director Mr. Ruch quoted in the Arizona Daily article and NYT. The New York Times also offers a different quote from a park official:
"In his statement, Mr. Barna notes that Park Service management policies require reliance on “the best scientific evidence available†and, as a result, rangers tell visitors that “the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years.â€http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

Note, Mr. Barna is also the guy saying the Education and Interpretive staff wanted the book kept on sale (as opposed to the Geologists) and that there are no records of this "review" because there just aren't. It's the fact that there are no records of the review (promised in 2003) that has riled up PEER.

Back in 2004 Barna promised a review and policy statement: http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/mar04/NN_gr...oncreation.html

>>Nevertheless, the selling of the creationist book has led to an NPS review about how they pick the books that they sell. “We’re trying to get the policy, interpretation and legal people together to develop a policy statement,†Barna says. “And it needs to be a policy statement that works at several other parks as well because other geologic parks across the West might have similar issues come up.â€

Although he says that the review process will take some time, he anticipates a decision soon about the issue of religion and science in NPS bookstores. “We’re trying to find some compromise that’ll satisfy both sides,†Barna says.

Elders [professor emeritus of geology at the University of California] endorses the establishment of guidelines to prevent the promotion of “pseudo-science†in national parks. “The Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., does not sell books that deny that the Holocaust ever occurred because such books are pseudo-history. This book is an extreme example of pseudo-science,†he says.<<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Jan 8 2007, 08:29 AM) [snapback]372405[/snapback]</div>

My best friend just came back from there and he said the park rangers told everyone that the Grand Canyon was built by undocumented Mexican workers because American citizens were not willing to do it.

 

So, is this a lie?

Will people go back to all the blogs and forums that are repeating this lie and have it corrected? Or will it become yet another "fact" that people toss out about the evil Bush administration?

I suspect we'll be seeing this one for a long time as people repeat the story from blog to blog, forum to forum.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 9 2007, 10:49 AM) [snapback]372995[/snapback]</div>

Some blogs are already correcting the exaggeration of park rangers not being able to say the age. Eventually google will probably give equal results for both. Correction is already occurring at http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com/2007/01/up...ss-release.html
Though I can still understand some people objecting to a Grand Canyon book that states, "the mile-deep Canyon itself, which could never have been carved out by the waters of the present river, tells of a time when a great dammed up lake full of water from the Flood suddenly broke..."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Jan 9 2007, 08:50 AM) [snapback]373053[/snapback]</div>

If its any consolation, the book was moved to the Inspiration section where the other creation myths surrounding the Grand Canyon are located about a year after being introduced into the store. Most of the NPS bookstores are run by private foundations, and they have these sections. They are worthwhile to see what the Native Americans thought (think) and what other traditions think. The mistake was in the foundation's first positioning of the book, alongside the geological references. Noted, and solved, back in 2004.

There are advocacy groups out there who are extremely anti-faith in their approach, and wish to use government coercion to prevent religious education or any expression of religious ideas in public areas. They are as extreme on the left as the Christian Identity movement is on the right. Most liberals think that all views should be available for people to access and make up their own minds on a voluntary basis (no "force feeding" it or violations of "separation" allowed). But the more strident anti-faith crowd occasionally even gets prominent people to sign their petitions supporting the idea of laws prohibiting parents from teaching their children their own faith traditions:

From http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/

Richard Dawkins, the noted evolutionist and author of many books popularizing evolutionary science, is also an ardent atheist, and signed the petition. He withdrew his support after being called on it by others in the anti-Creationism movement (see the account of it all at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/1...d_by_a_co.html).

The ardent atheists will continue to twist the language, leveraging people's mistrust of an unpopular President, to further their own ends. They should be called on it, but in our partisan, politically-charged atmosphere today, no one criticizes their own side. Even if their own side is making fools of them.

 

Some more investigation into the lie about the Bush Administration forcing Rangers to keep mum about the Canyon's age, with quotes from Rangers at the Canyon, can be found at http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com/2007/01/do...g-you-read.html

I haven't verified that the blogger is accurate in his quotes of the Rangers, but he does give citations to the official NPS policy, and includes the text of the NPS response to the lie. Worth a look if you are still evaluating the claim.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jan 10 2007, 03:49 AM) [snapback]373509[/snapback]</div>

A last bit a legwork found some email correspondence with Jeff Ruch, Director of PEER, in which they appear to backpeddle off the "gag-order" implied in the headline of their original press release. The original correspondence can be read at 1) letter to Peer http://nerdcountry.blogspot.com/2007/01/mo...and-canyon.html and 2) response from PEER http://nerdcountry.blogspot.com/2007/01/gr...n-ungagged.html

To whit:

>>Jeff--

This option is the closest:
<blockquote>Are you simply saying that the NPS hasn't offered an official guideline to its employees as to how they are to answer that question, and not that the official position is to answer "no comment"? </blockquote>
1. Reports from Grand Canyon NP interpretive staff, some of whom have been seeking clarification from their chain-of-command relative to questions about the validity of "young earth claims." The more than three-year hold-up in blocking official guidance on this question is part of this concern.

2. Statements by NPS HQ officials that the creationist view should be given equal time in park materials.

3. The reply from the Grand Canyon superintendent's office to media inquiries on the official park view on the age of the Canyon.

We did not mean to imply that geological information has been deleted from park materials.

Jeff Ruch
Executive Director
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)<<

As a side note, the comments from the rangerx site reveal that the creationist book was still being sold on the Grand Canyon website under the heading of natural history.
http://www.grandcanyonassociation.org/Merc...gory_Code=NHIST
http://www.grandcanyonassociation.org/page...ce78206eb46d71a
The revival of this story has resulted in that miscategorization being corrected and I imagine the links above with the NHIST category will be dead before too long.