Evidently, the Grand Canyon State Park is not allowed to say. Might upset some creationists.

I'm trying to decide whether this articles pisses me off more at the Bush administration, or at creationists.

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

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.”

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/PEER/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=132&t=sign-a-petition.dwt

I absolutely support this petition.

I'm not sure about this. I mean I've visited the Grand Canyon several times and have taken its various tours. For the most part, my guides were naturalists and geologists. Their remarks were largely based in current scientific consensus. However, they also spoke of various religious beliefs, Native American beliefs in particular. I found these comments illuminating; they put the experience in a broader context. I agree that the pressure from the Bush adminstration should be put in check, but, at the same time, banning all religious persepectives from a book store and prohibiting guides from referring to them seems extreme and Orwellian.

Should science be set aside? Should the staff at the Grand Canyon be forced to supress what they know... that the Grand Canyojn was formed over tens of thousands of years?

Can we do just as the conservatives do and call this a "War on geology"???

No. Of course not. But, again, I've been to the Canyon a few times and have taken a few tours--my guides were quite comfortable saying whatever they wanted about the age of the earth, and, again, their presentations were largely from a naturalist perspective.

I think this article is a bit alarmist and it's call to go entirely the other way, i.e., banning all religious perspective from the park bookstore and the commentary of its guides, is Orwellian and totally reactionary. Again my guides remarks concerning Native American religion were very illuminating and put the experience in a larger context.

I feeled compelled to put this in the context from which I am coming from on this issue. The alarming part for me is that a government agency is laying down the guidelines for what is collected for the bookstores and on what park guides can or cannot say.

It is my view that Park rangers and guides should put whatever text that they see to be relevent to the features of their repective parks into their bookstores. They, above all, know the land and what is fitting to say about it. As a traveler and park enthusiest, I have had conversations with the caretakers of these places, and most of them are geologic naturalists that appeal to the contemporary views on the age of the earth.

However, this rather robust dogma that the "library" be disconnected from the "schoolroom" seems foreign to the attitude you find in these beautiful places. Here's the deal: Places like the Grand Canyon, Moab, Muir State Park--all the beautiful and profound and sublime places--are not limited to a "Geologic history." There is a whole host of other aspects to them, as well, among them being anthropological, sociological, and psychological concerns. The history of our relation to our surroundings, the mutual influence of nature and man is important and instructive, as well. It is good to learn about how these places influenced the minds and imaginations of their first observers, and, from my experience, park guides tell these stories quite comfortably and with some enthusiasm. They seem interested in other aspects of the land besides "geologic history," as does their audience. In sum, those living in and near the park and working in the park are the best to judge the things that would be fruitful to learn about the land they love, the land they live in and spend their lives studying.

Interestingly, our author doesn't really tell us why "Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail." It could be that the park ranger simply found it to be a badly written book, or, perhaps, he blocked it on the account that earth-age debate has become way to politicized for attitude he wants to nurture among his guides.

At any rate, it is telling that this author makes no attempt to follow up with Alston but, instead, rests content on the quotation of "one," anonymous park geologist. This is questioning begging on two fronts: First, for the obvious reason of omiting the criteria for Alston's decision. And, secondly, because it assumes that geology is the only revelent issue within the park guide's schoolroom. This shouldn't satisfy any reader who desires to look at this issue objectively.

This article also speaks from "both sides of the mouth," as it were. On the one hand, it seems to support the autonomy of the park ranger's decision while at the same time being insistent on the type of things that a park ranger is prohibited from selecting for her bookstore. Whether the dictates come down upon the ranger from the government or from the political energies and powers behind this piece, the idea that grounds this argument is orwellian and reactionary, as I have said.

One should read these political manifestos with scrutiny, no matter from which side of the divide they come.

How about "I feel compelled to put this in context...." Oh, boy.