If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY
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.” ### |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
simple solution;
don't elect ignorant republicons to anything above dog catcher "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." ### |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
RF wrote: 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 Andy writes: Well, I drove past it in 1957. It was there then.... Hope this helps... Andy in Eureka, Texas |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
"RF" wrote in message ... HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY Who cares how old it is. How much does it weigh? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
But what about the poor dogs? I say don't elect them to anything above
Feltcher. -- ____ Brian "Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!" ____ View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951 On 12/30/2006 11:27 AM Elect Obama wrote: simple solution; don't elect ignorant republicons to anything above dog catcher "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." ### |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
On 30 Dec 2006 10:17:34 -0800, "AndyS"
wrote: RF wrote: 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 Andy writes: Well, I drove past it in 1957. It was there then.... Hope this helps... It's 6,000,039 years old, because when I was there in 1967 they said it was six million years old. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
Doesn't weigh anything...It is a BIG HOLE in the ground...
-- PcolaPhil To Reply remove SPAMNOT. You and I are Friends....... You Fight, I Fight........ You Hurt, I Hurt........ You Cry, I Cry......... You Jump Off a Bridge.... I'm Gonna Miss Your Dumb ass!!!! "Lee K" wrote in message ... | | "RF" wrote in message | ... | | HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY | | Who cares how old it is. How much does it weigh? | | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From Death valley to...Grand Canyon or Bryce Canyon? | Libellula | USA & Canada | 10 | July 26th, 2006 03:55 PM |
The Grand Canyon! | marv | Travel Marketplace | 0 | February 1st, 2006 01:40 AM |
Capitol Reef - Glen Canyon - Canyonlands - Arches - Monument Valley - Grand Canyon - Nataral Bridges | Christian Nielsen | USA & Canada | 17 | April 7th, 2004 04:50 PM |
Capitol Reef - Glen Canyon - Canyonlands - Arches - Monument Valley - Grand Canyon - Nataral Bridges | Christian Nielsen | Travel - anything else not covered | 15 | April 7th, 2004 04:50 PM |
Campsite / RV park suggestions for ID,Yellowstone,Grand Canyon Trip | Dan Olson | USA & Canada | 4 | February 28th, 2004 01:59 PM |