Cruiser,

Since there's an official source providing scientifically correct information about the age of the park, I find PEER's statement highly misleading and inflammatory. Since I agree that creationist nonsense doesn't belong in a national park, especially not with the appearance of federal sanction (because I don't think the government should even APPEAR to sanction anything with religious underpinnings, even if it's simply through a slogan such as 'in god we trust'), I think they're pursuing a worthy issue in an unworthy way. Claiming that information the park service makes easily available is somehow being concealed is simply dishonesty.

Refusing to comment when a question is pursuing an agenda, as PEER clearly is, should not be represented in this "tinfoil hat" manner. I looked at the story and assumed that incompetence, rather than evil, was the problem (and let's face it, as a former civil servant myself, the system is full of incompetence and apathy, and the fact that no review was requested shouldn't come as much of a surprise). I would require a lot more evidence than a bunch of shrill posturing on PEER's part before I agreed that there was some sort of conspiracy.

Do you know of any other sources on the issue that are maybe a little less biased?