HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY

Old_Timer wrote:
Thank You Andy for your input -- You are never at a loss for a helpful
answer to these puzzlingly situational questions.

Old_Timer

Andy writes...

Shucks...... I got answers to questions that ain't even been
asked yet ......

:)))) Andy in Eureka, Texas

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2006-12-30 11:43:04 -0500, "Keith Willshaw"
said:

The fact that they chose not to censor a book stating otherwise is a
different issue.

It's the ONLY issue. And what good are FAQ's on the Internet, if they
won't give sensible answers on the spot?


So is it your position that federal agencies should engage in censorship ?

I happen to believe creationsism is bunk but dont believe that the
NPS should refuse to sell books that state otherwise.

Keith

"PTravel" wrote in message
et...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message ...

"RF" wrote in message
...
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release
(www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
- Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on
Geology


This statement is factually incorrect

The NPS web site has the answer on their FAQ
http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

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

/Quote

The fact that they chose not to censor a book stating otherwise is a
different issue.

Keith

The question isn't whether they should censor a book, but whether the
National Park Service has any business selling a religious text in the
first place.



So I take it you are in favour of their banning the bible too eh !

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:
"PTravel" wrote in message
et...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message ...

"RF" wrote in message
...

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release
(www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
- Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on
Geology


This statement is factually incorrect

The NPS web site has the answer on their FAQ
http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

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

/Quote

The fact that they chose not to censor a book stating otherwise is a
different issue.

Keith

The question isn't whether they should censor a book, but whether the
National Park Service has any business selling a religious text in the
first place.




So I take it you are in favour of their banning the bible too eh !

Keith



Not at all. Just that the NPS should not be FORCED to sell religious
texts. That is not their job. They are there to promote knowledge and
understanding of nature and the geology of the area.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message ...

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2006-12-30 11:43:04 -0500, "Keith Willshaw"
said:

The fact that they chose not to censor a book stating otherwise is a
different issue.

It's the ONLY issue. And what good are FAQ's on the Internet, if they
won't give sensible answers on the spot?


So is it your position that federal agencies should engage in censorship ?

I happen to believe creationsism is bunk but dont believe that the
NPS should refuse to sell books that state otherwise.

Keith

The NPS has no business selling anything that advocates a particular
religious view. This isn't "censorship." This is observing the First
Amendment, as construed in Lemon v. Kurtzman: no preference, no endorsement
for religion.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message ...

"PTravel" wrote in message
et...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message ...

"RF" wrote in message
...
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release
(www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
- Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on
Geology


This statement is factually incorrect

The NPS web site has the answer on their FAQ
http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

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

/Quote

The fact that they chose not to censor a book stating otherwise is a
different issue.

Keith

The question isn't whether they should censor a book, but whether the
National Park Service has any business selling a religious text in the
first place.



So I take it you are in favour of their banning the bible too eh !

Keith

I'm not sure what you mean by "banning the bible." The NPS has no business
selling bibles, if that's what you mean -- doing so would violate the First
Amendment.

On 2006-12-31 14:08:30 -0500, "Keith Willshaw"
said:

So is it your position that federal agencies should engage in censorship ?

Yes, it is my position that federal agencies should be censored from
dealing in religious teachings.

On 2006-12-31 14:10:52 -0500, "Keith Willshaw"
said:


"PTravel" wrote in message
et...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
message ...

"RF" wrote in message
...
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release
(www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
- Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on
Geology


This statement is factually incorrect

The NPS web site has the answer on their FAQ
http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

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

/Quote

The fact that they chose not to censor a book stating otherwise is a
different issue.

Keith

The question isn't whether they should censor a book, but whether the
National Park Service has any business selling a religious text in the
first place.



So I take it you are in favour of their banning the bible too eh !

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. The National Park Service would have no
business selling bibles. (So far as I know, it doesn't now, so what's
your REAL gripe?)

Why should I care how old the Grand Canyon is?? I was there before I was
born and it will probably be there after I am dead.

Proof once again that many folks have too much time on their hands!


"RF" wrote in message
...
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release
(www.peer.org)
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
- Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on
Geology

Washington, DC - Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give
an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due
to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a
prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was
created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than
three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on
sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National
Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated
PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the
official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the
Grand Canyon is 'no comment.'"

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the
National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics,
remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive
rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the
geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar
to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees,
providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making
distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park
visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the
sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail,
a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an
evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and
overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of
Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that
there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act
request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone
conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand
Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like
libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact,
however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park
bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such,
materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are
supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover,
unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records
released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials
rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while
approving only one new sale item - the creationist book.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist
controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on "Interpretation
and Education (Director's Order #6) which reinforces the posture that
materials on the "history of the Earth must be based on the best
scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have
stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and]
Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to
endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes."

"As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone
National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful:
Nostrils of Satan," Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS
leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and
leading geological societies against the agency approval of the
creationist book. "We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park
Service now has the autonomy to do her job."

###

"sechumlib" wrote in message
...
On 2006-12-31 14:08:30 -0500, "Keith Willshaw"
said:

So is it your position that federal agencies should engage in censorship
?

Yes, it is my position that federal agencies should be censored from
dealing in religious teachings.


What would you know of religious teachings?