BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Joe_F
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 09:21 PM

I read some years ago that a question often asked of park rangers at the Grand Canyon was "What tools did they use?". A fair number of visitors assume that the canyon was *built*, either by the natives for religious purposes, or by a federal agency during the New Deal for the purpose of alleviating unemployment. Learning that it was all done 6000 years ago by God would probably stretch their minds quite a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: JeremyC
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM

Good for them, finally making a statement!

Looks to me like this Chief of Public Affairs either was unaware of or ignoring the issue, and one way or another, he ordered someone to write that response ASAP for his signature. I've seen that happen a thousand times.

Not that I'd fault them for that. I don't think it's possible for a government organization to function any differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 06:16 PM

How important it is to set the record straight and acknowledge mistakes. This is a good lesson why one should not embellish a problem to gain support when the support was already there. Let the facts speak for themselves so no credibility is lost whatsoever.

PEER's Grand Canyon Controversy Clarification from:
The Undercover Activist Blog @:

The Undercover Activist Blog

Further critical comments by a the same PEER supporter who wrote in the Activist Blog:

Crisis Papers Blog

And now, the statement from the NPS:

{Quote}
Age of Grand Canyon

Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the National Park Service's interpretation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our guidance to the field is contained in the NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director's Order # 6 and requires that 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. Our commitment to scientific accuracy is also driven by Director's Order #11B, which requires us to ensure the objectivity of the information we disseminate.

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. 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.

The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternative view of the canyon's origin).

The park's bookstore contains scores of texts that give the NPS geologic view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, neither do we censor alternative beliefs. Much like your local public library, you will find many alternative beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom.

It is not our role to tell people what to believe. We recognize that alternative views exist, but we teach the scientific explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC
Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina #129)
{End Quote}

Thanks to artbrooks and JeremyC for further questioning the statement by PEER. That is the best way to derive the facts. How good it is when strong supporters of a position will speak out when the facts do not support the premise posited. Too bad it took the time it did to set the record straight and for me to accidentally chance on this rebuttal today. The official NPS response to the controversy should have been immediate, unequivocal, and widely disseminated.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Slag
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:13 AM

Ok Bill D, You've convinced me. I have a wrinkle or two that some may not have considered. And I make no judgment! Honest consideration is what I give and all that I ask.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 10:41 PM

(naturally, Slag , we have [as you might guess]'done' the reason, logic, belief thing in detail several times. It can help each of us 'think' about our own positions, but as far as I know, it has changed no minds yet! *wry grin*...It usually becomes an exercise in folks just talking past each other, since they BEGIN the discussion with a set of premises they are not willing to go beyond.)

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Slag
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 10:22 PM

It's really all a question of perspective. I remember when our spacecraft Voyager swung it's camera back around to Earth as it was leaving the Solar System proper. Here was this little two-pixle, blue image in a vast sea of empty black. On that little mote are 6 billion people, the world ocean, the Grand Canyon, all that makes this remarkable, unique globe upon which we live. A few hundred years ago the RCC would have had you slain by the Inquisition for even holding such an idea. Creationists of the 6000 year stripe would call you a heretic for thinking the Earth is any older than that. If you believe in God then "How Big is your God?" Do you think He would create someone who had an inside track on His knowledge? God asked Job some very telling questions in the book by the same name, Job. He asked him where was he (Job) when "I created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them". Job had no answer. The Bible declares that God's thoughts are NOT the thoughts of Man and that His ways are beyond our meager understanding. So, If you DO believe in God, give Him credit for His ability to transcend His own creation of time as well as the other dimensions. He is not limited by our understanding.


And I know many of you reject the notion of God but that is fodder for another thread which I am comptemplating starting. You might be amazed at how quirky this old Universe is. The light of science shines on empirical evidence and claims no invisible superstructure or supernatural force to be at work ( Occam's Razor ) but remember, reason's ultimate appeal is to reason itself!

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 05:50 PM

To quote the late william Jennings Bryan:" I am more concerned with the Rock of Ages than with the age of rocks."

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM

I agree with the attitude you express in your post, Slag (even though mine is from a non-religious viewpoint).

I 'suspect' that many who do accept the 6000 year calculation are doing so partly to avoid confronting evolution and some of the theological fretting that involves.

As to the Park Service and their 'no comment' stance, I think it is sad that they feel the need to appease ANYONE by pretending to be neutral on a standard bit of scientific knowlege.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Slag
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 10:43 PM

Then they're cowards everyone! I believe in creation, God's creation but I don't believe in the 6000 year hooey. It exists nowhere in the Bible and nowhere in empiricism. The "Creatonism" of the 6000 year tribe is nothing but a projection of the mental and intellectual limitations of its adherents. It should be confronted. That's the only way real learning takes place, when ideas are made to stand on their own merits.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:45 PM

Art,

Since your were a civil servant for that long, you should contact the man who wrote the article, PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. I bet you could send him an e-mail.

I would like to know the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:39 PM

Appears to be a quote from a blog rather than a quote from a Park employee. Now, I was a Federal employee for over 30 years and if someone asked me for an "official" opinion on a topic that I knew a significant percentage of my employers (the citizens of the US) disagreed upon, I'd probably say "no comment" also. However, who (what Park employee, by name or position) said what and when?

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:26 PM

Apparently, NPS employees were instructed to reply "no comment"

{Quote}

"Employees of the park are not permitted to give an official estimate of the canyon's geological age, and are instead required to reply with 'no comment' if posed with the question."

{End Quote}

The source:

Truthdig

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 09:42 PM

Fair enough artbrooks.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 09:30 PM

Well, I have read the original linked article and all of the internal links. I would be entirely glad to agree that my opinion is too strong, if someone could show me where (in a direct quote or even a paraphrase) a Park Service representative says that the agency agrees with the creationist perspective or that they have no official comment on the age of the canyon. This all appears to be an extrapolation from the fact that the Park apparently hasn't agreed to require a concessionaire to remove a book from their bookstore which espouses a viewpoint with which PEER (and others, including myself) disagrees. Can you say book burning?

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 09:07 PM

JeremyC,

Thanks for the good discussion on this subject. As you know from being a former insider, there are many pressures on public servants from supervisors and on up through the chain-of-command. There is usually much more to a story than what is written in an article. Likely the only way to get more information would be to contact the author of the PEER article to inquire if more details are available.

I do understand what you are saying and it is always good to question something that you agree with in principle.


Artbrooks,

I think your assessment is a bit too strong and misses the mark. However, thanks for the input.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:31 PM

What I find interesting is that nowhere in any of the direct quotations from Park Service staff or in any of the documents to which PEER links does anyone say that the Park Service agrees with the creationist perspective or that they have no comment on the age of the canyon. This is entirely made up by PEER.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: JeremyC
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:07 PM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM

Maybe he did...he sure gave me just what I needed THIS time. 25 years, now...*smile* (not as old as the Grand Canyon, but not as rocky, either.)

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:19 PM

No, no, it wasn't Susie! In my case it was Pamela. And Allison.

The funny thing is, if I saw them now I doubt that I would be interested anymore at all. Time changes a lot of things.

Maybe God had it right after all. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:04 PM

What? Susie barely knew you existed too, LH?

That just shows a woman's superior capacity for multi-tasking. Susie was able to be oblivious to both of you simultaneously.

So she could do at least three things at once...

...while she was ignoring the both of you she had her eye on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM

I had that very same problem, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:45 PM

5 minutes ago? You mean I really DIDN'T do those things that...ummmm...."whew"

...ummmm, God...if it's that easy, may I please have some better memories about my high school crush, Susie, who barely knew I existed?

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Slag
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 02:36 AM

Join NOW! I can remember it for you, wholesale! (apologies to Philip K. Dick)

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cluin
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:27 AM

Shades of Bladerunner.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 01:24 AM

If you're right, Slag, I am really, really upset, because God has deprived me of my entire youth! And the false memories just don't make up for it either.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Slag
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:46 AM

So, where's my money?

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Bert
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:38 AM

Ah! that explains it Slag. Good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Slag
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:19 AM

NEWS FLASH!!! GOD (being God) actually created everything only five minutes ago, including you and all your memories. Join my new religion and learn more. Please send lots of money to help spread the Word! You've only had it for five minutes so you wont really miss it!

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:46 PM

Amos,

The Slate Magazine is an excellent, comprehensive online news source. Thanks for the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:48 PM

Looks like Gary Trudeau is on your wavelength.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:03 PM

One thing you'll never hear while standing in a crowd of tourists looking out over the Grand Canyon...

"Honey, does this canyon make my ass look big?"

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cluin
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:46 PM

God could really clean up at the Antiques Road Show.

"I'm really glad you brought this in. It's not often we see such a nice piece of primordial ooze. And in such good condition in the original packaging... I understand you have an interesting story on how you acquired it?..."

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: John Hardly
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:50 PM

"...just thinking about that makes me giggle. Would he have created them a long time ago, or just 6000 years ago...*grin*"

You've obviously never used a Formby's antiquing kit.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 02:52 PM

JermeyC,

{Quote}

"It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is 'no comment.'" {End Quote}

'no comment' can mean or can be interpreted as 'won't say', correct?

I cannot say where the 'no comment' reference in the PEER statement came from initially. There could have been a press release or a written document or some other source that used that phrase.

I do know PEER to be an extremely ethical organization and very helpful to federal employees in many ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: JeremyC
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 02:24 PM

So...if the age of the canyon is explicitly stated on their website, how is it that they're "not permitted to give an official estimate"? How is a statement like that, which obviously is coming from the agency, not an "official estimate"?

Yes, the fact that the book is being sold is pretty stupid. I'm not even going to try to dispute that. What I'm saying is that the title of the thread and some of the statements PEER is making are misleading and inflammatory. What's actually happening is that staff aren't being trained to distinguish creationism from science, and that they've for some reason decided to sell a creationist book.

While I'm confused that they'd refer inquiries to headquarters regarding the age of the canyon (instead of pointing them to the visitor FAQ), I don't see how that somehow equates to the park service (as an entity) refusing to make such a statement, since the information is right there for anyone who looks for it. PEER has some real concerns, and it's unfortunate that they have to mislead people to draw attention to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Cruiser
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 02:12 PM

JeremyC,

Yes, the age of the Canyon is stated on the website and the NPS office and in many books. The NPS or others cannot just delete that information from the website or amend it in books because it is science-based, peer reviewed material that can only be modified by contrary science-based evidence that passes peer review.

Please click on the other links within the original PEER link I provided it the initial post to this thread. The PEER letter is there and here are some excerpts for the letter:

{Quote}

"In the view of PEER, the practices at Grand Canyon NP with respect to the book Grand Canyon: A Different View and creationism are clearly at variance with the statutory and policy mandates underpinning your agency. We would request that you review this case and –

        1. Remove the book from sale at park bookstores and museums;

        2. Provide training to the interpretive staff at Grand Canyon NP regarding how to answer questions from the public concerning the geologic age of the Canyon and related matters; and

        3. Approve an updated version of the long-stalled pamphlet "National Park Service Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion" for distribution to agency interpretive staff.

Continued delay by NPS in forthrightly addressing this issue only undermines the credibility of your agency in its policies and pronouncements with respect to its educational mission and dedication to promoting excellence in science." {End Quote}

_____________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:36 PM

"Perhaps God created some very old rocks just to upset the geologists?"

...just thinking about that makes me giggle. Would he have created them a long time ago, or just 6000 years ago...*grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM

(Thanks, bobad)

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:07 PM

The Grand Canyon is one of a handful of examples known to any geologist in the World, along with Hawaii(shield volcanos) Edinburgh City centre (Plugs, sills, Crag and tail) and a few others.

They're the archtypal examples of various processes, and so get used for teaching. If you want someone to regocnise the traces of something, after it's been buried, eroded, faulted, intruded, and generally messed about with for x million years, you show them what an intact one looks like first.

Does it show I'm a Geology student?

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: danensis
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 12:49 PM

Perhaps God created some very old rocks just to upset the geologists?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 11:28 AM

JoeO: the Park Service web site says Drainage systems have cut deeply through the rock, forming numerous steep-walled canyons. and It is considered one of the finest examples of arid-land erosion in the world. The Canyon, incised by the Colorado River, is immense, averaging 4,000 feet deep for its entire 277 miles.

Like JeremyC says, listen to/read what the Park is saying, not to what one book sold there says. The bookstore, BTW, is run by the Grand Canyon Association, a private organization. They also sell books about anthropomorphic coyotes and javalenas.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: JeremyC
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 09:22 AM

What the hell. Like I posted above, they state the age of the Grand Canyon RIGHT on their WEBSITE. It took me roughly three seconds to find it. Yes, the administration sucks, and yes, creationism is bad, but why are you uncritically accepting PEER's statement? A moment on Google is enough to prove them wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: BanjoRay
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:40 AM

In 1995 I took a 12 day trip down the Colorado river in a paddle raft. The best 12 days of my life bar none! Civil engineers could have built it given 6000 years, but nature? Forget it!
Cheers
Ray

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Slag
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:39 AM

It is amazing to me how the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are so abused. They are both considered broad ideological brushes and are really practically worthless, except to fan flames. I consider myself a fairly conservative Christian. I come up against the 6000 year crowd and can only shake my head. They think Bishop Usser had devine inspiration when he came up with a date something like April 20th 4002 BC for the creation of the Earth, based mainly on the genealogical information in the Bible.

No where in the Bible is there a claim for a start time nor is there a chapter titled "How I Did It, by God!" The 6000 year old crowd feels the need to help God out of His chronological predicament. They ignore the scriptural caveat "one day (of God's) is as a 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day". They insist on limiting God by their own finite and faulty factulties of reason. To deny the obvious geological and fossil record is the same as accusing God of being deceitful!

More to the point, the last time I was at the canyon the ranger explained that plate tectonics have been lifting what was once a vast shallow inland sea in middle northern America for about 20 million years and that the Colorado and Little Colorado and tributaries have been eroding the ancient ocean bed for about that long. Exposed sedimentary rock goes below the fossil record in some places and said rock is about 2 billion years old.

No photograph or painting can do justice to the Canyon. Being there and experiencing it in person is the only way to appreciate it for what it is. It IS awe inspiring. If you ever get the chance, go and see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:45 PM

Hey, Susan, if you want to spend your money that way....be my guest! (grin)

I wouldn't worry much about that book. It's unlikely to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: wysiwyg
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:42 PM

I'm sorry, I did not read the whole thread so this may be an idea already offered-- can we buy up all the copies of the book they have to sell, so it will be GONE?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:29 PM

"Here comes the parcival pig to the forum?"

"Mary lives with a book-collecting agnostic?"

You can see it's been awhile... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Alice
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 10:55 PM

I remember our latin text had things like
Hic parvus porcum venit ad forum.
Mary habuit agnus album.
... or something like that, if my memory of 1967 is correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM

From ante- + Latin dluvium, flood; see diluvial.

Subject: RE: BS: Age of Grand Canyon? Park Won't Say
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:24 PM

"antediluvian" Joe Offer, I haven't checked but I think that rather than "diluvian" it is "deluvian" as in "deluge".