Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, December 30, 2006 | Science : Earth Sciences | print version Print | Comments

Document How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

by Peer.org

UPDATE 1-20-07:
Skeptic.com investigates and discounts this report. Click here.



Thanks to Mark Richards for the link.

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

Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

grand canyonWashington, 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"

Comments 1 - 50 of 94 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #15281 by Vadjong on December 30, 2006 at 6:27 am

 avatar"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,"

How about offending geologists ?

Other Comments by Vadjong

2. Comment #15284 by Apemanblues on December 30, 2006 at 6:37 am

 avatarComment #15281 by Vadjong

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,"

How about offending geologists ?

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

That's precisely what I thought.

What about offending normal and mentally balanced intelligent people?

That's OK I suppose.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

3. Comment #15286 by Vadjong on December 30, 2006 at 6:48 am

 avatarWhat will the park guides of Valles Marineris tell their punters ?
A lot of bigfooted Martians walking up and down for a long time ? (The fact that they saw the Earth turn a brighter shade of blue for forty days and nights freaked them out.)

Other Comments by Vadjong

4. Comment #15287 by Logicel on December 30, 2006 at 6:56 am

 avatarI see that Nikki's great link has been posted separately for discussion.

This a great sentence: "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. "

I remembered my family trip to the Grand Canyon decades ago when I was a kid, and how the scientific presentation of geologic facts were exhilarating to me and influenced my becoming an amateur geologist when I reached adolescence. To think that now children going to that same wonderful site are slapped in the face with crap, like a book on creationism and its idiotic interpretation of geological time, makes me profoundly sad.

The geologists that have to endure this nonsense must have joined that group of scientists--an article was listed at this site concerning this banding of scientists against the misusing of governmental funds to hold back the advancement of science. Being an American, with litigious blood cells rampaging in my arteries, I hope eventually the Grand Canyon scientists sue their employers for abuse in the workplace.

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #15288 by Ole on December 30, 2006 at 7:02 am

 avatarsuspend its belief in geology

????

How stupid is it possible to be?

Have they really started to "suspend belief" in science?

Geology now - who's next?

Physics or mathematics, or?

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

6. Comment #15289 by JohnC on December 30, 2006 at 7:21 am

 avatarLet's put this in persperctive. The YEC crowd had for some time turned the Grand Canyon into a symbolic cause. Documentaries about GC flood geology were made (even seen on this side of the world), "researchers" were sent out and many press releases issued. The incoming Bush-Rove-Cheney cabal knew that they had to be seen to be doing something for their base. So, what do we have? A silly book in the shop. That's the best 6 years of theocon ascendency could deliver to their base. Oh, and a pregnancy for Mary Cheney (whoops!) and the hanging of a 69yo deluded ex-tyrant (clutching his Koran) in the midst of sectarian maelstrom that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

They are now in retreat, and I have no doubt that the Grand Canyon bookstore will be revising its stocklist in the near future.

God Bless America!

Other Comments by JohnC

7. Comment #15290 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 30, 2006 at 7:26 am

 avatarThey are now in retreat, and I have no doubt that the Grand Canyon bookstore will be revising its stocklist in the near future.

Amen to that. I do notice that almost all atheists are consistently anti Bush/Neo Cons/Blowing stuff up.

Tells you something, doesn't it?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

8. Comment #15291 by Jiten on December 30, 2006 at 7:28 am

 avatarI don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Other Comments by Jiten

9. Comment #15292 by Graham on December 30, 2006 at 7:32 am

 avatarI remember a wonderful trip to the Grand Canyon at Thanksgiving 2006. The park had just reopened after the Federal budget dispute and I almost had the place to myself with perfect temperature for a hike down the South Kaibab Trail and up the Bright Angel Trail.

For an English geologist like myself it was like dream come true. I followed the change in strata, facies and ages both on the way down and the way up, and couldn't help feeling a thrill touching the Great Unconformity and knowing what it was (a gap in the rock record between Cambrian times, ~550 m.y. ago, and the pre-Cambrian).

Not only is it a complete abdication of reason and responsibility for the National Park to sanction creationist texts it is also an emotional diservice to the American public by denying them the awe, majesty and wonder of the real origin of this inspiring geological feature. Shame on you.

I really don't see how anyone could really believe that the rocks of the Grand Canyon were created in a flood. The only way I can imagine it is if they live in a fuzzy haze where they refuse to examine the evidence in front of their eyes. The National Park's job is to raise conciousness about our scientific knowledge, not feed willing ignorance and voluntary unthinking.

Graham Bradley C.Geol. F.G.S

Other Comments by Graham

10. Comment #15293 by Graham on December 30, 2006 at 7:36 am

 avatarJust for the record Apemanblues, I find your denigrating image of a chimpanzee smoking quite offensive. This is an image of abuse.

Other Comments by Graham

11. Comment #15295 by NotWithoutMyMonkey on December 30, 2006 at 7:52 am

I hope in the interest of fairness and in avoiding offence that they're also prepared to publish the creation stories of the local indigenous population.

*edit* I should say that I would hope that the creation myths of the local indigenous population were presented to park visitors - they difference is, there would not be any demand to have these presented in place of scientific explanations, and certainly they wouldn't be presented as truth.

Perhaps I should write my own account of the canyon's creation, presenting as a 'different view' and seek it's publication. After all, post-modernist political correctness outweighs the scientific method then surely then surely all opinions should be equally accomodated?

Other Comments by NotWithoutMyMonkey

12. Comment #15297 by siggiarni on December 30, 2006 at 7:53 am

"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."

Except scientific views, i guess.

Other Comments by siggiarni

13. Comment #15298 by hmsbeagle3 on December 30, 2006 at 7:59 am

Creationists aren't even taken seriously by the 'enlightened' laity. How is it possible that the American NPS has taken them seriously?

Other Comments by hmsbeagle3

14. Comment #15301 by JohnC on December 30, 2006 at 8:29 am

 avatarI would hope that the creation myths of the local indigenous population were presented to park visitors

I am reminded that in October I took my 16yo to the heart of Australia to see, among other thing, Uluru (formerly known as Ayres Rock). This extraordinary geological structure is reputedly the largest visible rock on the planet, and its ownership was handed back to the traditional custodians some years ago.

The cultural centre had a wealth of literature and displays about the myriad stories and customs associated with the rock. But it also had a publication on the geology. The pamphlet's introduction actually began with a statement that the traditional owners had explanations for the origin of the Rock, but that the content of this publication was the explanation that science had been able to deduce - and what an amazing story that is!

Now spot the difference, because it's not obvious from what I've said so far. It is that no one - not the most deranged post modernist nor the most chauvinistic Aborigine - would for a second contemplate replacing the narrative of geology with that of the Rainbow Serpent. These are stories that explain different things and assign different meanings to the same piece of geology, but they are not in competition. This is something Steve Gould tried to explicate, with uneven success, and perhaps something that RD has at least not communicated as well as he could.

Uluru is not a site of culture wars, but cultural enrichment, as should be the Grand Canyon (even though it's not a canyon).

Other Comments by JohnC

15. Comment #15302 by pugowner on December 30, 2006 at 8:51 am

My experience visiting U.S. national parks is that scientifically accurate information is presented. I routinely ask park rangers and staff about challenges from Bible literalists. They tell me it is an infrequent problem, and they don't change their presentation to avoid potential objections.

I invite you to check the official NPS website for the Grand Canyon: http://www.nps.gov/grca. I did not find any allusions or links to anything unscientific. To quote the website:

Well known for its geologic significance, the Grand Canyon is one of the most studied geologic landscapes in the world. It offers an excellent record of three of the four eras of geological time, a rich and diverse fossil record, a vast array of geologic features and rock types, and numerous caves containing extensive and significant geological, paleontological, archeological and biological resources. It is considered one of the finest examples of arid-land erosion in the world.

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.

Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?

No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada.

Other Comments by pugowner

16. Comment #15303 by QP on December 30, 2006 at 8:54 am

Comment #15281 by Vadjong

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,"

How about offending geologists ?
----------------------------------------
How many geologists are willing to strap explosives to themselves to enhance their bargaining power?

Other Comments by QP

17. Comment #15304 by nancyjesse on December 30, 2006 at 9:07 am

Just another reason to get that nut job out of the whitehouse

Other Comments by nancyjesse

18. Comment #15306 by Biblebeltheretic on December 30, 2006 at 9:22 am

Damn, and I thought Pecos Bill took a stick and dug the grand canyon. Yippi i aye yippi i ooo he's the toughest critter west of the alamo

Other Comments by Biblebeltheretic

19. Comment #15314 by HappyPrimate on December 30, 2006 at 10:09 am

 avatarI visited the GC as a 9yo and again as a 39yo (about 15 yrs ago). While I was not able to appreciate it at 9, at 39 I found it awesome. Standing on the south ridge looking out, my eyes filled with tears. It was a moving (spiritual?) moment for me to see millions of years laid bare before my eyes. I truly felt my place in the vastness of time. Small, very small. I was so thrilled with the experience. It is tragic that anyone should see it as designed or formed by a single event. I believe I should write my Senator and Representive immediately. I will not tolerate my tax dollars being used to spread religious propaganda.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

20. Comment #15315 by perkyjay on December 30, 2006 at 10:16 am

The nutters are everywhere. In Canada we have a federal Minister of Public Security, Stockwell Day, who subscribes to this nonsensical idea of The Flood and the fact that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, ie: within the last 6000 years. Good grief - a Minister of The Crown yet. But the Prime Minister is known as Bush-lite, so what can we expect.

Other Comments by perkyjay

21. Comment #15317 by Toby on December 30, 2006 at 10:27 am

Before i say anything else, i must point out how personally disgusted i am by the grand canyon national park to not step forward and denounce ludicarous claims which back up an earth that is 10,000 years old. It is beyond me how officials can allow such ridiculous thoughts such as noahs flood creating the grand canyon.
A single flood with the power to gouge such a canyon would have scraped north america off the face of the map. Though this great flood didnt actually ever occur anyway.
To turn a blind eye to 'conclusive' evidence people have confirmed all over the world indicates that whoever made this theory has never read any scientific literature on geology. I feel that turning down such evidence is asking for the doors to open to other things which there is no evidence for. Why not say that the rockys were actually put there by god from the sediment gouged out from the canyon. The whole situation is utterly proposterous.
I don't know how officials can stand back and watch this happen without a full investigation. If they genuinely believe in such nonsense without backing it up with scienitfic theory themselves. If they do not believe in carbon dating and geological based analysis then they should not believe in these forms of analysis in other fields. So carbon dating is based on radioactivity theories such as half life and nuclear decay therefore any science based on radiation should be dismissed by them such as x-ray technology, radar sensors, television and radios all based on electromagnetic radiation 'theories' (and thats just scratching the tip of the ice berg).
A group of people cannot, i repeat cannot justify not believing in a theory when it suits their purposes and then believe in it when it suits their purposes, it defies logic, understanding and the field of science itself.

Other Comments by Toby

22. Comment #15323 by CrysOdenkirk on December 30, 2006 at 11:12 am

 avatarThe only way I can imagine it is if they live in a fuzzy haze where they refuse to examine the evidence in front of their eyes.

Welcome to the USA, land of the tied-on stereoscope.

You have to acknowledge the evidence is in front of your eyes before you can refuse to examine it.

Other Comments by CrysOdenkirk

23. Comment #15324 by fatcitymax on December 30, 2006 at 11:18 am

I'm not at all upset by this. I want the Bush/NeoCon-Republican administration to be totally discredited. The more stupid, moronic, and ridiculous they become the better. As difficult as it would be on many citizens, I'm hoping that the economy disintegrates as well, so that Bush becomes as hated as Hoover was during the Great Depression.

Other Comments by fatcitymax

24. Comment #15327 by gcdavis on December 30, 2006 at 11:46 am

 avatarThe NPS.gov website FAQs are in no doubt..

Quote
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.
End quote

Other Comments by gcdavis

25. Comment #15335 by nine9s on December 30, 2006 at 1:19 pm

GAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Braghloughthtth!

How in the HELL?!?!?!?!??!?!

Much kudos to those of you who could write coherently in response to this monstrosity.

This crap is just inexcusable. How could people be so STUPID? It's one thing when you see little pockets of ignorance -- they, like the poor, will always be with us. But THIS?!? GRAGHLLLLAGHH!

Other Comments by nine9s

26. Comment #15336 by Zappi on December 30, 2006 at 1:24 pm

Well, is a matter of choice. Either the scientific evidence is taken into consideration or...

Let's jail all the geologists. Wait a minute, not all. There must be some religious university that churns out pentegeologists that defend "Noah's intelligent hypothesis".

Other Comments by Zappi

27. Comment #15339 by Jiten on December 30, 2006 at 1:38 pm

 avatarnine9s: Just a small comment to your post.It is this:The poor will not always be with us.And they haven't always been with us either.In hunter-gatherer societies of the pre-neolithic and indeed in todays foragers(for example in Borneo) there are no poor.For there are no rich.There is no money at all.True egalitarian societies.

Let's co-operate to build a just post-industrial society free from superstitions.


Other Comments by Jiten

28. Comment #15343 by John P on December 30, 2006 at 1:55 pm

 avatarRe: Comment #15281 by Vadjong

>>"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,"

>How about offending geologists ?

Just geologists? How about all people with brains?

Other Comments by John P

29. Comment #15344 by IANVS on December 30, 2006 at 2:05 pm

WARNING WARNING --- There are more YEC propagandists out there than you can shake a fossilized Ichthyosaurus or toss a coal miner's helmet at...

"What are fossils?

A fossil is a plant or animal that has been dead for a long time - usually thousands of years. It must be buried immediately after it dies. If it dies and is exposed to the air it will never become a fossil. A flood could cause a sudden burial and provide a means of fossilization.

How fast can something become a fossil?

The bigger the object, the longer it will take to fossilize. In Brazil, the Santana Formation contains millions of fossilized fish in which lithification [conversion to stone] was instantaneous. A fossil of Ichthyosaurus was in the process of giving birth! Something happened very fast in order to lock this event into stone.

What are index fossils?

They are fossils associated with a particular span of geological time. Almost every stratum [sheetlike layer of rock] contains fossils that seem to be the same type (clams, coral, etcetera). Evolutionists study the stratum and determine what "index" fossils are contained in it. They date the stratum from the index fossils they find. Okay, now think about this: if the date of the fossil is wrong, then the date of the stratum is also wrong. Remember that geologists tell us that the stratum have been laid down over millions of years!

What is the most unusual fossil?

It is a miner's felt hat from Tasmania. After 50 years, the hat was found and was as hard as a rock. The minerals in the water that covered the hat had turned it to stone.

How long does it take coal to form?

We have been taught that it takes millions of years for coal to form. However, in a laboratory, researchers have made low-quality coal in less that one year. It takes eleven years to produce coal that is very close to "Natural" coal. For example, under the right conditions, diamonds can be made in days and opals in a few months to a few years."

http://www.arksearch.com/naevolu.htm

Other Comments by IANVS

30. Comment #15345 by Vadjong on December 30, 2006 at 2:07 pm

 avatarJohn P,

Thanx for your comment.
I certainly did not think 'just geologists'.
I myself am offended, I hope that's clear.

(Apart from a very few highly peculiar cases, all people are blessed with a brain, it's how they use it, ne c'est pas ?)

Other Comments by Vadjong

31. Comment #15349 by Aussie on December 30, 2006 at 3:38 pm

Thank God for Australia!

You don't realise how good you have it until you see what people in other countries have to put up with.

Other Comments by Aussie

32. Comment #15352 by Pilot22A on December 30, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Stunned is an understatement. To read that there exists a book, sold at Grand Canyon National Park, wherein it states that the canyon was created by the Biblical Flood defies commonsense.

I live near the Park and must go there and buy one of these books. No one I know will believe it exists unless I actually show them the book.

The Park Service should be ashamed for printing this nonsense.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

33. Comment #15354 by DavidJMH on December 30, 2006 at 4:47 pm

The President of the U.S of A.,
Claims divine right of action today.
As expected, the Great Gorge
Pays no heed to George
And continues to meander it's way.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

34. Comment #15355 by stephend on December 30, 2006 at 4:48 pm

 avatarAll is not lost. A quick surf of their website led me to the following page which DOES give a proper account of the age of the Canyon:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/pphtml/subnaturalfeatures14.html

I guess with all those dubbyas removed from the keyboards in the White House, they haven't been able to surf to www.nps.gov to check.

Other Comments by stephend

35. Comment #15361 by JohnC on December 30, 2006 at 6:03 pm

 avatarThe Park Service should be ashamed for printing this nonsense @Pilot22A

Just to be clear, this is not an NPS publication, but a 2003 creationist coffee table book edited by Tom Vaill, of Canyon Ministries, who is also a Christian river guide, and has essays by such YEC stalwarts as Henry and John Morris, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, and Kurt Wise. It seems to sell about 300 copies a year.

The issue is that it is being sold by the half-dozen park bookstores whose stocklists are vetted by the NPS. Earlier episodes in this saga saw the Paleontological Society, American Geophysical Union, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Association of American State Geologists, Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, American Geological Institute and the Geological Society of America writing to the NPS, saying: "We urge you to remove the book from shelves where buyers are given the impression that the book is about Earth science and its content endorsed by the National Park Service."

The Alliance Defence Fund, a fundamentalist legal front founded by James Dobson among others, has threatened the Department of the Interior with court action if any move is made to remove the book from the shelves. Its First Amendment status is unclear.

Other Comments by JohnC

36. Comment #15362 by BigJohn on December 30, 2006 at 6:03 pm

 avatarBiblebeltheretic, aww, come on. It was Paul Bunyan and his Blue Ox, Babe, whut created the Grand Canyon. Everbuddy knows that.

Other Comments by BigJohn

37. Comment #15364 by LDmiller on December 30, 2006 at 6:28 pm

 avatarBRITS, AUSTRALIANS, EUROPEANS BEWARE

This should be an object lesson for what can happen in YOUR country if you allow the religiious zanies to get political power.

L. D. Miller
Ashamed in America

Other Comments by LDmiller

38. Comment #15371 by KJC on December 30, 2006 at 7:45 pm

 avatarIs this article for real? Struck me as a fake news item like the Onion does.

Other Comments by KJC

39. Comment #15372 by Nikki on December 30, 2006 at 7:45 pm

When I first followed that link, I really did think I was going to an Onion type story along the lines of the "Kansas Bans Evolution" one a few weeks back. When I arrived at the site, my mind literally went numb. I even double checked around to make sure that the NPS site wasn't another satirical site.
Recently I came across the Objective Ministries site and it took me a while to figure out whether it was genuine or not. The YECs would be a hell of a lot funnier if they weren't for real!

Other Comments by Nikki

40. Comment #15373 by Nikki on December 30, 2006 at 7:46 pm

KJC you posted at the exact time I did. Hahaha

Other Comments by Nikki

41. Comment #15381 by christopher.bloise on December 30, 2006 at 9:07 pm

 avatarIf I think about this for a minute it makes my brain hurt. The fact that anything but scientificly accepted facts are being presented to the public at a national park is mind boggling to me.

Maybe its cause I live in a blue state, but I think even religious people that I know would find fault with presenting a creationist view and stifiling a scientific fact at a national park.

Other Comments by christopher.bloise

42. Comment #15382 by JimC on December 30, 2006 at 9:10 pm

 avatarAn appalling, anti-scientific fraud. Even a religious person who understands the separation of church and state should be scared by this.
The comment by JohnC about Uluru in Australia is very important as well: it is possible to present indigenous creation stories and scientific fact/opinion as two, separate but valuable narratives, each in their own different ways.

Other Comments by JimC

43. Comment #15383 by Nazgul on December 30, 2006 at 9:15 pm

stu·pid /ˈstupɪd, ˈstyu‑/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[stoo-pid, styoo‑] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun
–adjective 1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
6. Slang. excellent; terrific.
–noun 7. Informal. a stupid person.

Other Comments by Nazgul

44. Comment #15387 by Peter Hearty on December 30, 2006 at 9:39 pm

 avatar> Geology now - who's next?
> Physics or mathematics, or?

They've already had a go at cosmology. See for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Solving-Distant-Universe/dp/0890512027

Russell Humphries claims to have found a solution to Einstein's field equations compatible with a young universe that is only a few thousand years old.

You will find others who take comfort in alleged variations in nuclear decay rates, alleged variations in the the speed of light, or who believe that stars are powered by gravitational collapse, rather than nuclear fusion in order to make their energy output compatible with a young earth.

I've done my own spoof on what they might do to mathematics:

http://www.hearty.plus.com/bumblism/maths.html

Other Comments by Peter Hearty

45. Comment #15390 by Nikki on December 30, 2006 at 10:56 pm

Peter, there was quite an intense discussion revolving around comology/astrophysics (sorry if the terms are wrong) moving along on the
"Defending Andy McIntosh" forum at that BBC site before McIntosh reposted his,er...,clarification.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2006/12/defending_andy_mcintosh_1.html
I'm pretty much ignorant in these areas so I
I couldn't/didn't follow along. My vague understanding of these areas comes from Noodle Theory!
Those posting in this debate appeared (to me at least) to have some indepth knowledge of these areas though.

Other Comments by Nikki

46. Comment #15391 by Veronique on December 30, 2006 at 11:55 pm

 avatarComment 15324-fatcitymax
I agree with you. I have posted elsewhere that everyone has the right to be stupid; some people abuse the privilege.
6 years of this lunatic and 2 more to go. The damage is unbelievable. We've had Howard for 10 years and maybe for 1 more. What we are likely to get after that is frightening in itself.
We have come in on the coattails of US with the diminution of the separation of church and state.
The rot seems likely to continue for a while yet.
You must have some very brave publishing houses in the US. My brother tells me that his friends in the US buy books like Sam Harris' and other with cash so there is no money trail. That's police state stuff. In the 'free' western world.
I hope I live long enough to feel safe enough to visit the US and see its natural wonders. There is no way I would go there at this stage.
I can't quite believe that the Bush administration could try to ban a geological and evidenced paper, books, maps that let people know what has been researched.
The NPS is funded with public funds, right?

Other Comments by Veronique

47. Comment #15393 by JohnC on December 31, 2006 at 12:47 am

 avatarVeronique, get a grip.
The NPS, which is an agency of the Department of Interior, has not "banned" anything.
And as a frequent visitor to the US, I can assure you it is no kind of "police state", though it is very different from Australia.
Travel broadens the mind, perhaps you should try it.

Other Comments by JohnC

48. Comment #15394 by Veronique on December 31, 2006 at 12:52 am

 avatarLDmiller - comment 15364
What happens in all our countries is an electoral system.
We have 'zanies' in power already, but not our PM. Very savvy, he's taken us back to the 1950s. That has underscored the religites getting into our Parliaments anyway.
But yours is the only country with an Electoral College with appointees who state who they will vote for in a Presidential election. You don't vote for your President.
But then, neither do we. Our leaders are chosen from the Parliamentary arm of the party(s). We only vote for the reps &/or senators standing within our electorates.
I understand from my reading on the 2004 US elections that there is a lot of local input from governors and other officals who actually conduct the elections in their areas. Like Ohio, Florida et al.
We have one Electoral Commission whose sole job it is to register voters, changes of address, changes of electoral boundaries and the overseeing of our elections. It is MUCH more difficult to rig elections here. Having said that, I suppose it could be infiltrated; how far such infiltration would get is another matter.
I think we may have better checks and balances in Oz than you do in the US. We don't have Diebold and touch screen voting for one, though I believe they have an office here (automated teller machines, of course, and I understand Diebold is good at that).
John C/Aussie - care to comment or are you out for NY eve? It's 8pm here so maybe you are.

Other Comments by Veronique

49. Comment #15395 by strak on December 31, 2006 at 12:58 am

 avatarRe Comment 15290
"Almost all atheists are Anti Bush/Neocon/Blowing things up"

Perhaps, Sir, but not all. I don't think it necessarily follows that atheism means a certain world view eg pacifism. It may be off the subject, but I thought that the US invaded Iraq to stage for Iran, and it still may be very helpful to have airbases close to hand if those mad mullahs (with their wish for the 12th Imam to re-appear and signal the end of the world) get much closer to the A-bomb.

Other Comments by strak

50. Comment #15398 by JohnC on December 31, 2006 at 1:22 am

 avatarStrak, indeed atheism actually implies virtually nothing about one's world view more generally, from an in-principle point of view. But as a matter of fact, an American atheist, for instance, is much more likely to be anti-Bush for reasons that are not too hard to divine. Corellation, not causality, though.

Now the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not to establish a "staging post" against Iran (if they wanted such a thing they already had huge bases is Saudi Arabia). The neocon adventure against Saddam has a long public record of rationales as the necessary first step in asserting American exceptionalism. It has failed in the most spectacular and tragic way.

Meanwhile, the notion that the appropriate response to the likely development of a nuclear capacity by Iran is military is yet another stupid delusion. On the other hand, some effective diplomacy might do wonders. The Persian semi-theocracy is a complex beast. Making a genuine attempt to understand it might be a good starting point.

Other Comments by JohnC
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: