NPS distancing itself from the Creationist book it approved

[blondie58]

EVOLVING GRAND CANYON POSITION LEAVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS — National Park Service Now Distancing Itself from Creationist Book It Approved


Washington, DC — The National Park Service insists that it does not teach creationism or endorse the view that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah’s Flood, according to a new agency public statement posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite this statement, the agency will continue selling a book making those “Young Earth” claims about the origin of the canyon – a book that top agency officials approved over the objections of its own park superintendent

In a statement issued by the National Park Service (NPS) Chief of Public Affairs, David Barna, on January 4th, the agency contends that park rangers have been instructed to “use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon…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 statement adds, “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…We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content.”

While this is the first time that the Park Service has gone on record distancing itself from the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, on sale in park bookstores, the Barna statement does not explain:

Why did the Park Service approve it for sale? Under agency rules, park officials are only to allow display materials of the highest accuracy and which support approved park interpretive themes in its bookstores;
What happened to the “policy review” on the book promised in public statements and in letters to members of Congress by Barna and other NPS officials?
Why has NPS refused for the past five years to issue the pamphlet entitled “Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion” providing guidance to park rangers and other interpretive staff on how to answer questions relating to creationism, evolution and related topics?
The Barna statement notes “This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore” but omits the fact that this “inspirational” section was created after PEER exposed the fact that the book was being sold as a “natural history.” The inspirational section now includes anthropological works on Native American culture but no other work remotely resembling the Vail book.

The new Park Service statement implies it will keep selling the creationist book for the foreseeable future, despite protests from the agency’s own specialists that the book’s approval violated Park Service rules.

“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”


www.peer.org Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

[derby378]

1. And here comes the NPS Political Officer...

On orders from Bush himself, he'll probably put a stop to all this science nonsense.

[Dead_Parrot]

2. More that meets the eye, here...

Earlier shenanigans with PEER & NPS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x8382

One of our readers directly challenged Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER:

When I challenged that PEER guy to show me some evidence and provided him evidence to the contrary, he didn’t have much. I would say PEER did more than jump the gun. I’d say they are spreading misinformation.

More on the other thread...

Just sayin' :)

[blondie58]

4. wow- thanks for that info, DP

here is another clarification from PEER's blog.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, DP!



Monday, 22 Jan 2007 Canyon controversy clarification
Many PEER supporters and bloggers world-wide have commented on the controversy surrounding the age of the Grand Canyon generated by a recent PEER press release. We would like to apologize for the fact that our December 28, 2006 release, “How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won’t Say,” was misleading. If we had it to do over, it would have been written differently. While we aim to call attention to issues that we believe are important, it is not our intention to promote misinformation.

We have taken a couple steps to amend our error:

1.) PEER revised the original release on our website, deleting the problematic first sentence. <“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.”>

Although the information was not included in the release, that sentence was based on the fact that since 2004 (until this recent controversy erupted) we heard from reporters that the superintendent’s office at GCNP had answered media questions about the age of the canyon with either a “no comment” or by referring the reporter to Headquarters.

2.) We distributed a second press release that laid out clearly the Park Service’s position on the age of the Grand Canyon, and posted the NPS official statement on our website.

It’s significant to note that the public controversy surrounding our release finally stimulated the National Park Service, for the first time, to go on the record saying it did not endorse the content of Tom Vail’s book, Grand Canyon: A Different View. As with all other statements on this issue, of course, it came out of HQ, and not the park.

Our intention in the original release was simply to point out that the National Park Service is
a.) still selling the creationist book in violation of their own policies and despite the protests of the Service’s own geologists and the park superintendent
b.) stonewalling on the long-promised official review of their decision to sell the book
c.) refusing to issue a brochure <“Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion”> advising park staff on how to address questions from visitors about creationism and the official NPS position in light of the approval of a book espousing this view.

As a side note, we spoke today with someone who bought the book out of curiosity, and was dismayed to find that it included promotional material about the author’s church and for his river tour company. He suggested that this offered further reasons it shouldn’t be sold in the NPS bookstore.

Again, our apologies to anyone who felt offended or misinformed. Thank you for following PEER’s work, and taking the time to become engaged in the issue. Public discourse and healthy skepticism are crucial in arriving at a more complete understanding of the truth.

This blog is a forum for that debate, and we welcome your participation.

Sincerely,
PEER


Hmmm... it seems that creationists are always going to believe their own theories. I guess that it is good that their faith is so strong. Personally, I am a Christian, but I take the Bible with a grain of salt, as it was written by men- over the years. My religion is between God and me though, and I listen to reason and science first. Just my 2 cents!

[jeff30997]

3. I'm repeating myself but...

Peoples who believe in creationism are brainwashed and-or stupid morons!

[Ian David]

5. The PEER Story was a hoax.

Fact Checking 101: How Skeptic magazine was Duped by an Environmental Activist Group Click here to hide this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=247x8382