Reply With Quote
I don't mind them selling the book, but I find them not willing to give an age answer due to pressure ridiculous.
When I saw the headline on HuffPo, I thought it was some kinda hoax to jerk people's chain (no links were provided), but I found the souce...still hard to believe. This is shameful.
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 do ents 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 en led 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 occured
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"
I don't mind them selling the book, but I find them not willing to give an age answer due to pressure ridiculous.
And I was the one convicted of crimes against humanity? Outrageous.
Repug science = Biblical science = Russian science = total, reeking bull .
These mother ing evangeligical/creationist/Bible-thumper are ignorant, retrogressive, benighted dumb s blasphemously doing the darkening work of spreading Satan's lies "in Christ's name".
Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan
That was funny.
The Library vs. Schoolroom debate is central to this controversy, I think. I'd be interested to hear from a more objective source on the matter. My personal opinion is that the Library comparison holds more ground since the visitors are not exclusively children and most of the time they will have parents around to tell them whatever they want them to believe. So in that regard, I think PEER is fighting the wrong battle.
As for the approximate age, where would the "age" usually be posted? Are there books in the same bookstore with the "Different View" book? I guess I could see having a display that shows some sort of timeline. I'd be interested to know more about what, exactly, is being obstructed.
Just looks like another silly battle in the imaginary Creation vs. Science war... Everybody's a victim.
You're really a bag...Repug science = Biblical science = Russian science = total, reeking bull .
These mother ing evangeligical/creationist/Bible-thumper are ignorant, retrogressive, benighted dumb s blasphemously doing the darkening work of spreading Satan's lies "in Christ's name".
For the record, if this is really true it's pretty ing lame.
You're getting better and better at recognizing your own traits, croutonsignorant, retrogressive, benighted dumb s
AHF post a "
less twerp, post something besides smileys.
boutons' newspaper would have looked like this in 1943.
"imaginary Creation vs. Science war"
imaginary? the creationist/Bible-thumper dumb s are waging a REAL war on science.
KICK THE HABIT BOUTONS
I don't think I will be able to sleep at night now that I know this.
All of you dumb s on the radical religious/conservative right make your own habitual basic mistake that because I'm vehemently anti-dubya/ head, anti-this-generation-Repugs, anti-Iraq-war, anti-creationist/Bible-thumper/evangelical that I'm therefore liberal/Democrat/anti-God/anti-Christ.
Continue in your errors, they are broad and deep.
Something tells me you have no friends.
Well, snake. then maybe you should pray for him.
I can't help it that you can't read. I said this revisionist about the Grand Canyon was ing lame.AHF post a "
less twerp, post something besides smileys.
That said, you're still a dumbass.
So what are you? The way you spew hate towards everything Republican/religious/conservative, there's not much else for you to go.
And don't even try to pretend you're libertarian or centrist. Your comments have already distanced you from those ideals as well.
Sometimes you've gotta call a spade a spade, or in your case a dumb liberal a dumb liberal.
Sorry, I don't pray or go to church for that matter.
Good for you! Praying is a waste of time, what with fate being pre-determined and all.
there's not much else for you to go."
typical failure of your stunted imagination
"don't even try to pretend you're libertarian or centrist."
but you can pretend to tell me what not to pretend? off, less, your is a weak as ever.
A war based on imaginary contradictions that they, along with their anti-religious counterparts, continue to ballyhoo with the hopes of discrediting the other.
Repug science = Biblical science = Russian science = total, reeking bull .
These mother ing evangeligical/creationist/Bible-thumper are ignorant, retrogressive, benighted dumb s blasphemously doing the darkening work of spreading Satan's lies "in Christ's name".
Um, people who don't believe in that stuff aren't exactly open-minded.
Care to explain when or how you have indicated any different?
Your wanton over-generalizations, and broad lumping-together of all Republicans and Christians don't bode well for a response claiming that we've somehow managed to misunderstand you.
Explain your position on GOD... since apparently you claim to believe in Him all while disdainfully besmirching anyone else who does. Do you now see the incoherency of your claim?
oh..... and have a happy New Year!
I know there's a middle ground. But your comments on this board indicate that you can't be called a libertarian or a centrist.
So what's left? Satanism? Atheism? Come on needle , instead of us having to guess where you get the influence for your profanity/fifth yard schoolboy views, ing enlighten us. Otherwise, stfu.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
