Park Service Sticks With Biblical Explanation For Grand Canyon

[bif]

Unbelievable:

The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).


Entire article:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14313.shtml

[takumi]

1. Believable Because it's 'BUSH'

[zappaman]

3. Goddammit!!!!

This creationism stuff pisses me off! Are we a theocracy now?
Fairy tales should not be supported by the government.

[MatrixEscape]

4. Hmmm, not quite yet!

But four more years ... American Taliban? Doable.

[aden_nak]

2. That a portion of our population can hear that and say "Makes sense!"

simply re-qualifies us as a failed genetic experiment.

[ihaveaquestion]

5. I don't see a huge problem with this

as long as the scientific books are still sold. I've seen other religious books sold at these stores, particularly Native American books that tell of their creation stories. They are mythology, but if someone believes them to be fact, then so what?

[drunkdriver-in-chief]

9. I have no problem with it either

The scientific explanation is just a theory and could be a load of hog wash. I don't really believe this crap about noah's flood causing the grand canyon but who's to say?

[Robbie67]

13. How about because the idea that the Canyon was formed

by a flood is ludicrous? Isn't that a good reason?

There are books about Native Americans and their beliefs at the Grand Canyon. There are no books by Native Americans saying that the Canyon was created by a flood.

Also: putting a book like this on next to a scientific book as if both are equally valid is like "Fox News" books.

[madrchsod]

6. one word.....

Gilgamesh........

[chelaque liberal]

7. Is it just that DUer's are picking up all of this terrifying religious

crap today or does it represent a true picture of American mentality? In any case, I'm getting freaked out!

My only hope is that it will have the same effect on other people, especially if they were leaning toward Bush but just tolerating his religiosity.

[politicat]

8. It's not just Du'ers.... My freethought group has trying to get documents

out of the National Parks Service on this and a similar matter (nuns wanted to put up bible plaques at the major outlook sites) using the FOIA. It's not easy, but we're getting somewhere and may be able to sue them for violations of neutrality and creating a hostile environment for non-Christians.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of noisy people out there who think that tossing aside a few hundred years of scientific progress is all in a day's work.

They are in the minority, but they have big voices.

PCat

[delete_bush]

10. Welcome to the dark ages

Why don't we just turn the whole fucking planet into one giant xtian fundamentalist theme park.

[bif]

11. Republicans...building a bridge to the 15th century!

[patcox2]

12. Why is DU being spammed with this non-issue? Third time.

And it truly is a non-issue. They are selling one stupid (and I mean it is stupid) book alongside the dozens of others in the park stores. I have been there, they have some of the best real, genuine scientific geology books I have ever found anywhere. So what, they are selling this book too.

Its not the only book in the stores, noone is being tied up and having it read to them forcibly.

I have much more of an issue with water policy, or with the quality of the air over the canyon.

This is so a non-issue, and it is quite frankly offensive because the poster seems to be suggesting that this particular book should be banned, censored.

This is the third time I have seen this non issue posted. There seems to be some astro-turf yay-saying going on to get the ball rolling, too. What agenda is this?

[Robbie67]

14. I guess it's a "non-issue" conspiracy?

Spill it, bif! What is your agenda???

[bif]

17. Okay, I'm a born-again

fundamentalist Christian gun-totin' member of the Klan. I like riling people up.

[bif]

15. I hadn't seen this until today

Until someone emailed it to me. My comment consisted of one single word: "Unbelievable"
And you respond with:

"This is so a non-issue, and it is quite frankly offensive because the poster seems to be suggesting that this particular book should be banned, censored."

[Lilli]

18. Well I dont think its a non-issue

ANYTHING that can point out to even one voter that they yet again lied (when they said the sale was unde review) AND also points to some sort of religious agenda over scientific evidence could be very meaningful to someone who hasn't heard it before.

You never know what the one issue could be that opens someones eyes.

[placton]

16. Gee, didn't you hear?

They found a big ark yesterday, at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. It had lotsa skeletons of unicorns, manticores, cyclops, and other creatures.

[0rganism]

19. This book speaks to the views of a significant fraction of Americans

I'm not saying we should go out of our way to be blindly egalitarian, but I do recall a poll from a few years ago to the effect that about a third of Americans believed in biblical creation, complete with the 6,000-year-old earth. So it's no wonder this book sells well.

I would bet money that 90%+ of the young-earthers are numbered among bush's core supporters, too. It comes as no surprise that bush's version of the Park Service would throw them a bone this way.

[patcox2]

20. Its not throwing someone a bone to allow a book to be sold.

This is like attacking a library for carrying a book you disagree with. If it were the only book in the store, it would be one thing, but its not the only book in the store. I have two geology books on my shelves that I bought at the grand canyon, they have lots there (great very specific guides to the local geology, one of them actually explains all the features you see all the way down the Bright Angel trail, its fantastic).

It is not an endorsement, nor is it government sponsorship of religion, to allow a book to be sold.

It is censorship to prohibit it from being sold.

I am glad to see the park workers union fighting the bushies tooth and nail and obviously not backing down on any issue no matter how trivial, but this one still ranks way way down there.

[delete_bush]

21. It would not be censorship to prohit

the book from being sold, just as it would not be censorship if they refused to carry MY self-published book on the Grand Canyon.

It does beg the question as to the process by which the Park Service determines which products to carry in their gift shops. It is wrong for this or any administration to use OUR national parks, museums, etc. to advance their particular point of view, especially religious.