According to a recent Huffington Post blog report, the National Park Service is forbidden to state the age of the Grand Canyon. On top of that, a book that claims that the Noahic flood created the Grand Canyon is on the shelves, though 22 books with other views have been rejected.

Questions for debate:

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know?


2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refeered journals?



3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

1. I don't claim to be a big expert on the geological history of the Grand canyon, so I simply go to a basic resource and try to find the answer. Here's one:

Link



I see no reason to doubt this answer. Other folks do. Here's some information about the controversy about this book, written from the pro-creationist side.

Link



Why does a National Park have an inspirational (translation: religious) section in its bookstore?



(You can also click on a link to see the complete memo, which outlines in a very clear way why The Grand Canyon: A Different View does not belong in a National Park bookstore. It also makes the point that this is not an issue of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. A book for sale at the National Park bookstore must meet certain requirements, because it is being sold under the official auspices of the federal government. A book which rejects mainstream science is clearly not appropriate in this setting. Certainly, organizations not officially affiliated with the government have the right to promote and sell this book; but not the government itself.)

Despite Shaver's precisely reasoned analysis of why the book should not be sold in the National Park bookstore, it continues to be available there, as far as I can tell.

How do I "definitely" know? Well, that's where folks who rely on the scientific method get backed into a corner. We're willing to say "Well, I guess it's possible that the Grand Canyon was actually carved into the Earth by giant laser cannons during the Venus-Mars war of a few thousand years ago." This is sometimes misinterpreted to mean that we don't see the difference between something which is very, very probable, and something which is very, very improbable.

Suffice to say that the evidence that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years rather than thousands of years is overwhelming. I do not "definitely know" this, the way the person of faith claims to "definitely know" the dogmas of her religion; but I feel secure enough to say that this is a "fact" of science to as great an extent as anything can be.

2. Well, nobody really "determines" what science is; it defines itself. It's a method of obtaining a more and more accurate model of the physical universe. It is not a collection of data and theories; it is the mechanism by which data is molded into theories, which are then tested. Despite all the heart-warming images we may have of the scientific loner, rejected by her peers for her unconventional theories, the plain fact is that the mainstream consensus of scientific thought is, by far, the best tool we have for understanding reality. When some individual has stood against the mainstream of scientific thinking (for example, Alfred Wegener's idea of continental drift), the radical new idea has gone on to become part of the mainstream through the normal procedures of science. The scientific method is not perfect, but it has the wonderful advantage of being self-correcting. So, yes, peer review by mainstream journals is an excellent way to get closer to the truth.

3. It would be nice to think that even the vast majority of persons of faith reject religiously-based attacks on mainstream science. I'm not so sure. Take a look at this poll on the beliefs of Americans, from 1997.

Link



Pretty close to half of Americans believe that humanity is less than 10,000 years old. These folks would be perfectly happy with The Grand Canyon: A Different View, I think.

So, I'm not sure if this sort of thing hurts the Religious Right at all. Let's face it; when it comes to religious fundamentalism, you have, for the most part, people who are part of it, and people who are against it. The activities and beliefs of religious conservatives attract roughly as many Americans as they repel. (This would not be true in almost any other nation in the "free world.")

Before anybody else wastes time with these questions based on excrement from Huffington Toast, I would suggest that they simply peruse Page 3.

Questions for debate:

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know? Older than me. I have pictures of my mom visiting the Grand Canyon before I was born. If you want a more authoritative, although not more accurate answer, check out Page 3.

2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refeered journals? As VS noted, science, strictly speaking, is a methodology. However, there is also a distinct sociology of science, complete with its own cultures, traditions, and economies. The idealized view of science that VS presents is not completely resonant with the real world. Humans "do" science. As a result, "science" is fraught with the same irrational behaviors that bedevil other human behaviors.

3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America? Do blog entries like the one that sparked this thread hurt the cause of "science"? After all, if one is championing the rationality of science by pointing out the irrationality of religion in the face of accepted facts, witch hunts based on lies would seem to be counter-productive. But hey, that's just my theory...

Let me just stir up the controversy a little by adding another source for this story.

Link



(Bold added for emphasis)

PEER is obviously not an entirely neutral source, so I suppose it is possible that they made the whole thing up. It also seems to be true that this alleged "gag order" doesn't seem to apply to the park's printed materials, as in the example provided by Bikerdad. It just seems very odd that PEER would make this up, when they have a perfectly good case against the sale of The Grand Canyon: A Different View anyway.

I tried to find another source for this, but I cannot. In any case, the fact that this news release was linked to Huffington's blog is irrelevant. If anybody's integrity should be in question, it is PEER, and I have no evidence either way.

However, I have found a few other references to official government policy on this matter.

Link



("The book" in question here is our old friend, The Grand Canyon: A Different View.)

There's a large number of articles about this controversy at this link which you can read for yourself. There is even at least one from the creationist media.

My conclusion is that, no, there has not been a complete ban on information giving the scientific viewpoint of the Grand Canyon. However, there is some evidence that there was an effort to block a rebuttal to The Grand Canyon: A Different View.

In any case, I think the big question here is whether a creationist text should be sold in the bookstore of a National Park. I would say not, since I believe that no governmental agency should promote any point of view on any religious subject at all. (I would oppose the sale of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins at a National Park bookstore also. Pro-religious or anti-religious opinions have no place in official government information.)

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know?

Pretty darn old, I'd say. Where'd all that dirt and rock go to, anyway? How come there are so many layers to the Earth, which you can see while at the Grand Canyon? Where'd the dinosaurs come from and why did they die off? Why are most of them found in the Morrison formation? How come the continents look like jigsaw puzzle pieces? Why are the Rockies so much more rugged than the Appalachians, and who put fish fossils up here? It's a pretty good joke.

Science takes all this physical evidence and proposes answers based on closer looks at the evidence and observations of current phenomena. Certain religious types take their answers and try to fit the physical evidence to them, current phenomena be damned.

Let's see if I have this right: If you take evidence and come to a conclusion from it, that's inductive thinking. If you take a conclusion and look for evidence for it, that's deductive thinking. Or maybe it's the other way around, but that's the big difference in thinking. Science works from evidence, while religion works from conclusions.

So to put the Great Grand Canyon Origins debate into perspective, science starts out with, hey, look at that big canyon! How'd that happen? Religion starts out with God created the heavens and Earth, and hey, look at that big canyon! Nice work God, how'd you do that in under 10,000 years? Must have been the flood.

I know the Grand Canyon itself is about 10,000 years old. That's because the last ice age ended about then, and I bet that's what carved out the canyon. You see, melting glacier ice forms huge pools with ice damns, and when those ice damns break, you get continental-sized, rapidly moving, gigantic floods. Scientists have observed this in current day glaciers as they melt. They have explained mysterious formations that range from Wyoming to Washington as the results of ice damns breaking and the dramatic movement of massive amounts of water downhill to the ocean.

Well, there's evidence of multiple ice ages, so the planet has to be older than 10,000 years. When I look at a simple piece of rock, I can feel the age. That's intuitive thinking. My intuition tells me that the creationists are all wet, damn them. God is not a magician, although the illusion is still pretty good. But that goes into a different type of thinking, and we're not talking about that.

2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refeered journals?

Yes, that is how science works, peer review is a big part of coming to any form of understanding. It's no guarantee. Science can be wrong for a long, long time until the truth comes out. However, religious dogma can be wrong forever, and oftentimes is. I mean, if you figure things out for yourself, and there I go again.

3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

Yes, I do think so. It shows how we really don't want a President who is too far down the religious path as to deny science. Most of us like science, and all of us need it. We have to figure out how this world really ticks in order to survive. It's pretty basic, you know. The history of the planet isn't quite so necessary for survival. This sort of thing, The Great Grand Canyon Origins debate, is just irritating. Stem cell research hits closer to the survival instinct of the species. So does global warming, should weather patterns continue to get strange. Alternative energy tech gets a good look when gas prices surge.

Yep, we like science. That'll help us survive. Religions are more about death, when it comes right down to it. This is why my brother, who has recently turned sixty, has found religion after a long life of materialism. He's getting ready.

The moralism takes a second seat to getting your sorry soul into heaven, and isn't it so convenient that most of your life can be forgiven just like that. Anyway, that's what religion does best, prepare folks for the next phase. When it comes to figuring out how the world works, it sucks. It's not very good with history either, politics, sociology, psychology and just about everything else. Great at fundraising and organizing events, creating punitive hierarchies . . . I'll stop there. No reason to get angry on this holiday.

As to the issue about selling books at national parks, I don't think that's much of a big deal. What the heck, if people want to buy them, let them do so. The profits will help keep the parks open. I do think it's downright criminal to gag park rangers because they might offend someone who believes in fictions, such as the RR being either religious or right. Nope, it's all about scratch, power, and a few other deadly sins.

But that whole thing is turning around. The bottom line is that most of us like science. Some of us like to think certain ways about how all this came about, and that's fine as long as such thinking isn't forced upon others through the rule of law. Heh, this is heading toward science being forced down our throats in school. What, not prepared for the test? Gotcher doubts? Yep, that's science all right. Now prove it.

I find it slightly odd, too, but I'd feel slightly more confident in what they said if they could at least have quoted from this alleged "order", or maybe given us the name of the person or persons who promulgated it - something. Given Bikerdad's link, what appears more likely is that employees were told to avoid confrontations with creationist tourists, and that PEER sort of embellished things ever so slightly.

Anyway, I agree with you that no one determines what science is; it just is. It's not the exclusive domain of any one class of professionals. But I as for the book in the bookstore, I'm not sure I agree completely. The fact that a book is merely being sold in the store doesn't mean the store (and by extension, its owners, in this case the government) endorses it. There's nothing wrong, in and of itself, with allowing more than one point of view. PEER does make the case that the bookstores are supposed to be more like educational centers than libraries, so they do have a point. Nonetheless, the fact that the book is entitled A Different View should get across the point that the author is dissenting from accepted science. That should be enough to obviate concerns that the government is misleading the public into believing that this is accepted science.

What may seem as practical in regards to creationist visitors violates established policy.



The last sentence may be viewed as allowing the creationist view, but I'm taking that to mean other natural scientific views that haven't are new or haven't been sufficiently studied as of yet.The sentence before it clearly states what should happen. The fact that 22 books on the real age of the Grand Canyone were rejected while the one that should've been rejected, wasn't, highlights the disregard that this administration has had towards science.

Having just read through this little controversy, I find myself a little confused.



How is selling a book at a bookstore in any way comparable to the curriculum of a public school? Shouldn't environmentalists champion the fact that their precious park is being partly funded by the ignorance of the religious right? Call it a God tax if you like. Shouldn't a bookstore be able to sell any kind of books, notwithstanding regulation 8.4.2 cited above? It's not like they are using the book as educational material. Not to mention, don't I remember learning about the Hopi Indians' own creationism theories when I took the tour of the Grand Canyon? I think that I do. As a matter of fact, I can buy a book on this at the Crand Canyon bookstore.



Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

I just stood in a national park recently, and more than one person around me said "just looking at this, you are in awe of God's creation" or words to that effect. Seems perfectly appropriate when put in that context, and I didn't find it at all dissonant with the lecture which informed me that the geological formation in question was around 800,000 years old.

Completely harmless, selling a book. Now, if the park rangers are really being gagged about geology questions, that is wrong. But with a book, I have no problem.

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know?

The grand canyon is very old, not as old as other things though. How do I know for sure, well because science has devised ways that allows it to know within a certain tolerance the age of things. Do I think the scientific view of the grand canyons age is right on the money, down to the very second, no, not yet, but for what it worth science can actually do honest work in regards to this issue and come far closer to truth then religion can, and guess what, anybody is free to go and look over all the work, get a phd and go on to help science do what it does.

2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refeered journals?

Science general determines that. Being anything you make as a scientist then has to stand to time as being factual honest. This is why peer review works, because for someone to make a lie about the natural world and have it last means it cant come into contact with any other scientist that may not be going along with the scheme.

3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

There’s not a whole lot left to hurt in regards to my opinion, I just remember the troves of people or republicans yelling at me on debate boards that bush is not religious, and now I find this all to funny and fitting overall.

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know?

There are several answers to this question, and allowing that is what I see as the real answer. There is an answer that it cannot be older than what certain biblical scholars say is the biblical age of the universe/world. There are several answers based on “the majority opinion of practicing geologist/scientists. There is the “man in the street bible readers opinion”. There is the Bush “against science” politics which mostly does not allow an answer. And, etc. As voters, I believe we expect answers founded on evidence, which may not be limited just to “the scientific community”; but not giving an answer, or prohibiting answers, is unacceptable to me.

2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refeered journals?

For the first question: At least five groups do: 1. the many flavors of practitioners of science, 2. the appliers of science, e.g. technologists, engineers, policy determiners, doctors, etc., 3. all other more indirect consumers of science, e.g. teachers, students, philosophers, science “buffs”, etc., 4. all funders of scientific endeavors, including us through gov’t, 5. “We the people”, i.e. we who vote, and thereby vote on things people that have implicit definitions of “science” within them.

The reason it should not be just the groups mentioned in the second question is that those groups essentially are special interests, and though “established in some sense”, they do not represent all of the 5. or more groups just listed. Moreover, there are abuses in all of these groups, and many “honest scientifically inclined persons” do object to these “authorities”, their turf, and their essentially anti scientific practices. These groups are in business for themselves, and should not therefore regulate themselves. The fictions of real “universities”, “peer review”, “scientific organizations”, “publishers of journals”, etc. There are many things that go on in these “authorites practices” that are not necessarily in the public interest of “science”.

3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

Issues such as this and their airing and discussion and debate are both useful and essential to the health and welfare of mainstream America. Special interests groups who are either hurt or helped below this level of focus, are irrelevant to this “health and welfare of mainstream America”. I gues that means "no comment".

Nice to see stories that use self-referencing evidence.

In this case, the PEER article says that PEER President says.... blah blah.



So, if some creationists believe 6,000 years is the age of the world and the idea is that park material must comply with this, why do we have the Grand Canyon official site say:


and


or their FAQ

In summary, this claim is dubious at best.

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know?

The official site says 5-6 million years. They have far better information than I do.

2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refereed journals?
I'm unsure how this relates to the story linked. Scientific organizations do not have a monopoly on "science" (which is a methodology) but they do have plenty of influence.

3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

"Issues" like this greatly affect the credibility of those that forward them without any evidence to back them. At the same time, yes they tarnish the image of the "religious right" although using half truths and misleading statements to harm others isn't new.

Hunh? A book sold in a bookstore is now a "program"?

This book is not going to hurt anyone. It will not threaten to take us back to a Dark Age. Anyone really that concerned should publish a rebuttal.

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know?

Current geological science gives us 5-6 million years. Seems right to me.

2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refeered journals?

The wikipedia has an excellent reference on the philosophy of science. Key components of a good scientific theory are: testibility, reproducibility, predictiveness and falsifiability.

3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

I agree with Carlitoswhey. We should just view the sale of this book as a "God Tax". As long as it doesn't sit on the science shelf in the bookstore, I have no trouble with its sale.

And to be fair, this isn't a "religious right" issue (though they are the bulk of the believers); this is a jesus-christer fundamentalist issue. I'd also have no problem if a group of "radical Tolkenites" published a book discussing the origin of the grand canyon as the fallout from the collapse of Mount Doom. Just don't put it on the science shelf.

When did the US Government become the authority on the age of the Grand Canyon? Don't we have enough scientific experts in the world that can provide this information? If a park ranger said the canyon was 50 billion years old, would you believe him? What if a famous geological scientist refuted his claim, and said it was only 50 million years old? Who would you believe?

In reviewing the blog posting in question something jumps out at me:

"The sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View was scheduled for review over three years ago, but no such review has been schedule or even requested. The creationist book was the only item approved for sale in 2003 (22 other items were rejected). " (Emphasis mine)

The way this has been phrased, you can be forgiven for thinking that this was a blatant push from Creationists to try to overthrow science based programs as the Grand Canyon. However if you pause to think about this logically a few things should be obvious:

1. "Grand Canyon: A Different View" is not the only book on the Park Service gift store shelfs.

2. A quick check of Amazon.com lists 18,000+ books relating to the Grand Canyon. Not all of these are going to be able to be carried in the gift stores.

3. A majority of well written, scientific based books on the Grand Canyon that are submitted for approval are going to be rejected because other books on sale are either as good or better than the book in question.

According to the blog post above 22 other items were rejected. It does not, however, say what those items were. They could have been science base books. They could have been religion based books. Who knows. However, as anyone in retail knows, you want to provide as good as selection as possible of what you think your customers will want to purchase. It does your bottom line no good if you only sell what you think is best for your customers. According to one of the links previously provided:

"To date we have not heard anything “official,” but the Park continues to order and sell the book. In fact, it is now one of their top 10 best-selling books. " (Emphasis mine again) link

I don't know if this is true or not as they provided no source for this claim. However, if true, it is even more reason why the Park Service would not want to remove the book. We are always hearing about how chronically short of money the Park Service is. Why would they want to remove an item that consistently make them money, especially if it is not presented in their "hard science" section.

In regard to the questions for debate:

1.)How old is the Grand Canyon? How do you definitively know?

A. No one knows and B. You don't. (see 2)

2.)Who determines who should determine what science is? Why shouldn't it be the established scientific organizations and university professors who are peer-reviewed and who publish in refeered journals?

No one "determines what science is." Science is simply "knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" science. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved January 18, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

To often the religious and those who prefer scientific explanations fail to realize that each side does not have to be mutually exclusive. Religionists can say that God created everything, but any one of us who tries to say how was done is simply guessing. Scientists can explain the scientific law/theory/hypothesis behind everything but can't say with 100% certainty of anything they haven't personally observed. Before you jump all over me about how I am anti-science let me clarify that. Anything recorded by a reputable source is fairly reliable as well, therefore scientific research done by Galileo and others in recorded history can be used as well. This doesn't mean that everything they recorded is truth, but you know what I mean.

However recorded history, especially recorded "scientific" history is very short. Scientists make guesses based on observations of current scientific happenings. They then extrapolate back based on current happenings. Basically they are saying that "as long as everything operated then the same as it does today then X must be true." This is fine as far as it goes. I am perfectly happy in saying that "according to science the Grand Canyon is 5 or 6 million years old" Do I personally believe that it is? Not really but neither am I prepared to give you an age or tell you how it formed. As I said before it would simply be a guess. I don't see that it has any bearing on the afterlife as to how long ago it formed.

3.)Do issues like this hurt the "religious right" in America with mainstream America?

I think most people could not care less one way or another. The "religious right" will see it as attack on them and the "anti-religious" left or whatever you want to call it will see it as another reason that religion is dangerous. In other words it is just going to confirm everybodys belief in what they already believe.

In summary I don't have a problem with the book in question being sold and I think that the blog that started this discussion is trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill.

This minor debate is pretty much over, but I thought I would add a footnote.

Those who were skeptical about the claims by PEER were correct. I still think that it is not appropriate for a National Park to carry religious (or anti-religious) material in its bookstore, but the claim that park rangers were not allowed to discuss the age of the Grand Canyon seems to be a false one.

Link



Jeers to PEER for messing up their perfectly valid case against The Grand Canyon: A Different View with false statements, and kudos to Skeptic magazine for blowing the whistle on them.