quote:“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.’”
"Disconcerting" is putting it very politely.
quote:“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,”
I'd buy that book.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Bush administration are not idiots. They've figured out exactly who the right people to pander to are, and they have stayed in power for six years.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'll give you they aren't idiots, but I'll take "Evil" in return then.
From my perspective, its really one or the other. This move may be POLITICALLY smart, but when you actively and knowingly promote superstition over knowledge, you've crossed the line into evil.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it possible that it's a very specific one or two appointees responsible for the idiocy, and the article's repeated representation of them as the Bush administration appointees is simply an attempt to directly connect Bush with a fringe demographic of the Republican party by a biased media source? This seems like something that took place on a much lower bureaucratic level. I doubt pushing Grand Canyon creationism is very high on Bush's to do list. The issue needs to be brought to public attention, and a change needs to be made, but there’s no cause for it to be used as another platform to attack Bush.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if the order came from lower level bureaucrats Bush either allowed it or doesn't have the ability to stop his underlings. And it is well known he and his administration panders to the religious fanatics.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deeply disturbing. This must be in response to a lawsuit on the matter, I would not look for the Bush Administration to be responsible, merely responsive to some legal complaint. Look for a Lawyer.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: The Bush administration are not idiots. They've figured out exactly who the right people to pander to are, and they have stayed in power for six years.
posted
Just how does the park have to knuckle under to 'pressure', anyway? Did someone threaten to cut their funding? In any case, the appropriate action is plainly to find the responsible someone and pitch him, her, or it into the Canyon. Failing that, you could sign this petition. (The one marked 'Faith-based Parks').
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if the order came from lower level bureaucrats Bush either allowed it or doesn't have the ability to stop his underlings. And it is well known he and his administration panders to the religious fanatics.
I don't know how one can responsibly conclude that Bush knows about this or should know about this from that article, written by an advocacy group and citing almost no facts that will allow a reader to judge their conclusions about what rangers have been ordered to say or not say about the age of the canyon. Does anyone actually think that the President reviews instructions to park rangers? There's no presentation of the history of any review sought for the instructions to the rangers.
The official NPS Grand Canyon Web site states the following:
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. (top of page)
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.
posted
Seems like its mostly park high officials that are causing this mess, and Bush certainly does not appoint all park staff/administration, I doubt he directly appoints ANY of them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr..this has been going on in the Park Services for a while now. It's not like this is some isolated incident. Maybe a year and a half ago there was a whole thing about Bush administration officials forcing the park service to put creationist books in the science section of the bookstores. Around the same time, people were bringing up complaints that they were being pressured to remove references to the ages of things as being factual.
The Bush administration has been constantly criticized by the scientific community for it's widespread, overt, and baseless flaunting of basic scientific fact. There was a little blurb recently about how the petition against this reached 100,000 signatories with scientific credentials. I don't get how people think that this could be an isolated incident.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, so we have more vague accusations about people being pressured to remove references to age. We have the NPS web site with the age.
Sorry, you have to do better than that if you want to make this at all credible.
As to the creationist book, it's been discussed here already. The issue involves a lot more than science and goes to the root of government involvement in sponsoring private expression.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If this accusation were true, it would be cause for a lot of screaming and yelling and fear that a small, religiously extreme group of people have undue, and detrimental influence on our government.
However, until I get more facts to back up this fear, then I will believe this is fear-mongering from the left.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag and Dan... so we need to find other sources to convince you this is real? :begins the search:
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Telp, Dag has a pretty authoritative link (the National Park Service Grand Canyon site) that shows the park is perfectly able to talk about the age of the canyon and its contents in accord with modern geology and against the tenets of creationism. Whatever else the Bush administration has done, it has not in any way censored the NPS from discussing the age of The Grand Canyon.
It seems to me that PEER is largely upset that a creationist book is being sold at the site. They are the ones, rightly or wrongly, demanding that something not be discussed. They do mention a pamphlet about the differences in science and religion being blocked from distribution among park employees, but I didn't see a link to it (conspicuously absent among their links, in fact, is any actual text from the materials in dispute) and, regardless, the pamphlet has nothing to do with the National Park Service official position on the age of the canyon which has, again, been posted here by Dagonee.
Squick, I believe the word you want is "flauting" not "flaunting". I say this with the benefit of having made similar mistake myself.
But *this* pretty much says it all:
quote:There was a little blurb recently about how the petition against this reached 100,000 signatories with scientific credentials.
All that shows is that 100,000 men with "scientific credentials" (I have a BA in applied physical sciences, does that give me scientific credentials?) can be wrong, too. I don't care how many people testify that the government won't allow them to say "rocks in the grand canyon are 2,000,000 years old", the fact that the US Department of the Interior says that very thing makes the claim ridiculous.
What these people want is a creationist book to be pulled from the shelves at the Grand Canyon gift store. I can say with confidence that I do not agree with the conclusions reached in the book in question, but, nonetheless, the headline should be "Bush administration allows sale of creationist literature at National Parks". It is ludicrous that a group of educated people should not know the difference between "being silenced" and "having an opposing viewpoint presented" and the deceptive nature of the article calls into question the good faith and reliability of PEER, and, quite frankly, the reading comprehesnsion skills of most of you here. It also reinforces the image of a group of people scraping through the dregs of the internet so they can come lambaste the Bush administration on hatrack.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even more troubling, PEER charges that Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate of the age of the canyon
This article is over two years old, and the National Park Service web site as of yesterday mentioned rocks 4 billion years old.
I see the charge again and again phrased as "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature."
I haven't seen a single quote from a ranger yet saying he's not permitted to give the age.
quote:One would THINK that ICR would have learned a lesson from having this lie exposed. Alas, they have not. In the December 2003 issue of "Acts and Facts", we find:
"A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY Grand Canyon National Park invited Dr. Steve Austin, ICR [Institute for Creation Research] geologist, to speak to rangers about his discovery of an extraordinary fossil deposit within Grand Can- yon. The talk to uniformed rangers and science research coordinators occurred on the south rim of Grand Canyon. Dr. Austin illustrated the mass kill and burial bed containing billions of large nautiloid fossils within the Redwall Limestone. Discussion followed about how limestone strata could be deposited in minutes. The rangers expressed interest in improving geologic lectures to the public and changing signs which consider only uniform sedimentary process oper- ating over millions of years and wanted to explore other creationist thinking on Grand Canyon."
Since this spiel sounded so similar to the earlier Tulsa Zoo lie, I had my suspicions that ICR was fibbing yet again. A quick email to the National Park Service's Grand Canyon office confirmed that my suspicions were indeed correct. The Park Service responded:
"Hello Lenny,
Thanks very much for bringing your information of Steve Austin to our attention. Steve Austin was one of the 100 or so Research Permit holders in our park. All Permit holders are obligated under the Permit requirements to submit articles or presentations to the park for the purpose of educating interested park staff on the nature of their research. Steve came to present his research under the guidelines of discussing only his study methods and results (the same constraints for all research presenters) - and that is exactly what he did without one reference to Noah, Noah's flood, or any other creationist ideas.
I don't know what individual rangers said to him privately after his presentation regarding his study; however during the public question and answer period he was scrutinized and questioned very rigorously by a few of the Park Interpretive Rangers. No one at any time expressed interest in changing our interpretive signs to include creationist views.
I am sorry to learn Steve Austin is not being truthful about the circumstances of his research presentation. Our policy is to allow all researchers an opportunity to present their data in a public forum at the Park; however, if researchers abuse this privilege by false proclamations to further their own agenda, we will have to take this into consideration when selecting speakers in the future.
Sincerely,
Emma
Emma P. Benenati, Ph.D.
Ecologist / Research Coordinator - Grand Canyon National Park"
quote:Barna [NPS Spokesman], of the park service, said interpreters who guide visitors through the park are aware there are different viewpoints on the canyon's development. "They're instructed in the current scientific and geological explanation, which means very, very old, as in hundreds of millions of years," he said. "I'm certain that park interpretative rangers get stopped frequently by people who believe the creationist view or maybe the Native American view. ... Our explanation is that we recognize that there are a variety of opinions."
quote:Interpretive rangers need to be ready to put aside their personal feelings and thoughts when faced with a challenging visitor who is not going to connect with the resource in the way in which the interpreter is ready.
The best interpreters can handle almost any situation because they know one key thing — our job is to connect all visitors to park resources regardless of the interpreter’s point of view. The interpretive moment is about the visitor, not the interpreter. This might mean that a dyed-in-the-wool geologist needs to be able to explain the Grand Canyon to a creationist in a way that makes that place special to them.
quote:Really wacky stuff – and definitely not the scientific view that the Park interpreters are trained to tell the visitors. It’s too bad that the Park Service allows the work of its interpreters to be undercut by unscientific literature sold in its own park.
Enough for now. I can't find anything about the accusation "NPS makes no official estimate of the canyon's age" that doesn't originate from PEER. The book was moved to the inspirational section of the bookstore according to several web sites I came across.
So yes, you need to find other sources to convince me this is real.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: No, Telp, Dag has a pretty authoritative link (the National Park Service Grand Canyon site) that shows the park is perfectly able to talk about the age of the canyon and its contents in accord with modern geology and against the tenets of creationism. Whatever else the Bush administration has done, it has not in any way censored the NPS from discussing the age of The Grand Canyon.
But Dag has only shown that this is true of the website. He hasn't posted any proof that "it has not IN ANY WAY censored the NPS" (emphasis mine). I don't defy Dag to provide proof because it is probably impossible to do, and though the accusation is not proof enough in itself, I would not be surprised if there IS a way in which the NPS as been censored. Since you claim that they have not "in any way," I would ask you to prove the statement you made. Of course you can't do that, so don't try to kill the discussion right there.
Edit: Not that I don't generally agree with you, but you are turning around on the argument and claiming that the censorships isn't happening AT ALL. The fact is it very well could be happening and you wouldn't know it. I don't think it is either, but it could be.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The censorship, even according to the PEER article, if you read the facts it presents instead of the spin it places on them, is being called for *by* PEER. Their complaint is not that they aren't allowed to say things and they do not cite one instance of not being allowed to say something. Their complaint is that a certain book has not been removed at their behest.
Also you have to admit the idea that the Department of the Interior is so foolish as to say "our official policy is to prevent you from discussing this, but we'll make it our official answer on our park website" is rather ridiculous.
So yes, I *am* turning it around, but that is only because PEER has initially turned it around to begin with by defining "censorship" as "allowing the sale of a book containing an opinion we don't like."
For clarity's sake, I think Young Earth Creationism is false, and have no intent to defend it, or even defend the sale of the book in question in the National Park Service bookstore.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Dag has only shown that this is true of the website.
Not quite. I've also posted evidence that at some point after PEER first made this claim, Rangers were still being trained to present the old-earth theory of the formation of the Canyon.
No, I most certainly did not post proof that the NPS has not been censored in any way. I have, however, demonstrated the drafter of the release linked in the original post to either be a liar or a recklessly incompetent researcher making irresponsible claims to further his political agenda. At this point, I don't see another option, although if someone can present an innocent explanation of this spectacularly misleading release, I'm open to hearing it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get newsletters from the "Sceptic Society". These people beleive in being skeptical and trusting to science over mystery and what somewhat--religion.
I greatly enjoyed their logic based attacks on faith healers, UFOlogists, and ghost chasers. Then last week they ran this story. I was shocked. Couldn't the Skeptical Society be a bit Skeptical of this sort of propaganda.
I wasn't the only one.
I got an apology e-mail today. Here is what it said:
Fact Checking 101 How Skeptic magazine was Duped by an Environmental Activist Group by Michael Shermer
In last week’s eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group. That press release, dated December 28, 2006, was headlined:
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
The first sentence of the release reads:
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.
Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false. Callers were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees — or by anyone else — to withhold scientific information, and all were referred to a statement by David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service as to the park’s official position. “Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc. use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon,” the document explains.
If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer: ‘The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.’
Understandably, many of our readers were outraged by both the duplicity of the claim and our failure to fact check it. One park ranger wrote us:
You’re a day late and a dollar short on this one. As a national park ranger, I found most of PEER’s findings to be bogus. So have others: http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com
A Grand Canyon park interpreter wrote:
This is incorrect. I have NEVER been told to present non-science based programs. In fact, I received “talking points” demanding that Grand Canyon employees present programs BASED ON SCIENCE and that we must use the scientific version supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. As an interpreter I have shared the “creation” story of the Hopi people and the Paiute people because it is culturally relative. I used these stories as a tool to introduce the scientific story. Be confident there are good people running government, too.
One of our readers directly challenged Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER:
When I challenged that PEER guy to show me some evidence and provided him evidence to the contrary, he didn’t have much. I would say PEER did more than jump the gun. I’d say they are spreading misinformation.
Another Grand Canyon park interpreter offered this explanation:
Ruch’s attempts to insinuate a conspiratorial link between the NPS and organized religion are misguided and founded in fervent anti-Christian opposition, not reason or the law. Ruch’s anti-Judeo-Christian bias is evidence by his lack of opposition to GCA’s selling of Native American creation myths. His misinformation campaign aims to tarnish the reputation of the NPS to leverage his position that creationism books should not be sold in the GCA bookstore. I’ve emailed a few of my contacts at GRCA, and so far, all deny any conspiracy and all freely give the canyon’s age in education programs (as does all official GRCA print material). I’ll post updates as information becomes available. Until then, don’t believe everything you read.
The reference to the creationism book being sold in the Grand Canyon bookstore — Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail — is true. It is sold in the “inspiration” section of the bookstore, alongside other books of myth and spirituality. In any case, the story is an old one now, and completely irrelevant to the claim that NPS employees are withholding information about the age of the canyon, and/or are being pressured to do so by Bush administration appointees.
Embarrassed and angered by all of this, I promptly phoned Jeff Ruch myself and inquired what evidence he has to support this claim. He initially pointed to the creationism book and the fact that the NPS has failed to address numerous challenges to the sale of same in their bookstore. When I pointed out that this is irrelevant to the claim in the press release, he then reminded me of the biblical passages that have been posted at places along the rim of the canyon. Again, I admonished, this is not evidence for his central claim. We went round and round on the phone until I finally gave up and hung up, convinced that he simply made up the claim out of whole cloth.
Not wishing to simply call Ruch a liar, and allowing myself to calm down a bit, I emailed him and asked:
Can you tell us who in the Bush administration put pressure on park service employees? Can you name one person in the GCNP staff who says that they are not permitted to give the official estimate of the age of the canyon?
He responded:
I do not know — it is at the Director’s level or above. We have been trying to find out for three years. Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times. I contacted Julie Cart at the Los Angeles Times, who was out of town on assignment, and got her editor, Frank Clifford, on the phone. Clifford knew all about the creationism book and the biblical passages on the rim of the canyon, but said that he had heard nothing about this new claim of Bush administration appointees silencing park service staff, and that if Julie knew of such a thing the Times would be most interested in following up with the story. I then reached Julie by email, who said that she too knew of no such silence on the part of park staffers regarding the age of the canyon.
Once again outraged and enraged , I emailed Ruch to ask him why he referenced Cart, who denied his central claim. He responded:
I referred you to Julie because of the response she got from the superintendent’s office when she covered the issue earlier — not for any new claim.
Thanks a lot. I wasted several hours tracking down that false lead. Now at my wit’s end with this guy, I point blank asked him if he made it all up. He responded:
The interpretive staff at GCNP we are working with do not want to be identified and have gone into deep underground as the atmosphere at the park is now somewhat volatile.
Well, it would have been nice (not to mention ethical) if he would have said so in the first place. (I have now wasted about 10 hours of research time on this instead of other projects.) The referencing of sources who wish to remain anonymous is quite common in journalism and, in fact, there are laws protecting whistleblowers . The fact that no such reference was made until I pointedly accused Ruch of flatout lying makes me, well, skeptical of this explanation. His final statement to me doesn’t make me any less skeptical:
We are issuing an amended release today that
deletes reference to what interpretive staff can and cannot say and features the NPS official statement that they provide geological information to the public. Then why did PEER issue that statement in the first place? In my opinion, this is why:
PEER is an anti-Bush, anti-religion liberal activist watchdog group in search of demons to exorcise and dragons to slay. On one level, that’s how the system works in a free society, and there are plenty of pro-Bush, pro-religion conservative activist watchdog groups who do the same thing on the other side. Maybe in a Hegelian process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis we find truth that way; at least at the level of talk radio. But journalistic standards and scholarly ethics still hold sway at all levels of discourse that matter, and to that end I believe we were duped by an activist group who at the very least exaggerated a claim and published it in order to gain notoriety for itself, or worse, simply made it up.
To that end I apologize to all of our readers for not fact checking this story before publishing it on eSkeptic and www.skeptic.com. Shame on us. But shame on you too, Mr. Ruch, and shame on PEER, for this egregious display of poor judgment and unethical behavior.
Michael Shermer Publisher, Skeptic magazine Executive Director, the Skeptics Society
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Skeptic Society is pretty cool, and they manage to be incredibly self-regulating: their target market is inherently skeptical, so nothing blows by them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
