Fear Of Offending Creationists

Walker!!!

That is dumber than dirt!!! Are they out of their minds, or are they stoned out of their bloody minds? Geez!!!

I live in Arizona, about 2 hours from the Canyon. This has been in and out of the news here for a couple of years.

So why did I only hear about it for the first time tonight? Canada must be more sheltered than I thought!

Canada doesn't pay any attention to the creationists and flat-Earthers. Here, they get to elect governments.

Good answer, Walker!! You seem to be saying that we Canadians know how to think for ourselves. You're mostly right, but let's see how long that lasts with our newly elected idiot-in-charge.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard!

Nothing surprises me, where Bush is involved.

This story also happens to be false. You need proof? No problem. Let's go to the National Park Service:

Interpretive Ranger Programs - in this course the speak of the geology and how the Grand Canyon came to be what it is today. Not enough proof?

Natural Features & Ecosystems- "Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years."

Does anybody still want to dispute this?

This is an example of the way fundamentalist Christians are co-opting our government agencies with the help of the Bush Administration. Seperation of church and state no longer applies. Why? Because the Bush Administration knows that fundamentalist vote regularly so they are courted. What a shame.

OK, the souirce on that website was created last October, so it is fairly recent. The Arizona Republic has carried this story on and off for several years and I also received this in a bulletin from the Canyon Conservancy organization.

The above article is also from PEER, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is a relatively responsible group.

I don't understand. I just showed you the National Park Service talking about the Grand Canyon being 1,800 Million years old. This is current information. Call the park and ask them yourself.

PEER is a left wing group with an agenda.

THIS IS A FALSE STORY. PLEASE SEE MY POST ABOVE WITH LINKS TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

"Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years."

The only thing that is true in this is this: a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood is for sale at the National Park's bookstore.

Wow - they allowed a book with a religious view to be for sale. There are tons of books that are based on traditional science. What's the problem? Oh... that's right, the problem is Bush is in office so off they go stretching the truth of a story.

Don, You are confusing two things.

The web site makes one reference to the geological age of the Greand Canyon.
The web site does NOT include the oral spiel of the Park Rangers.

The Rangers have been prohibited from mentioning the detail on the web site for fear of offending Creationist visitors.

This is true.

It is the Governments covert coddling of an extremist religious group.

Don, You are wrong

THE PROHIBITION RELATES TO WHAT THE PARK RANGERS CAN SAY TO VISITORS. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE REFERENCE TO GEOLOGICAL AGES FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING CREATIONSISTS.

The assumption is, of course, that creationsits are luddites who won't use computers.Or, that the Bush administration can make an unlawful provision for their religious sensitivity at the expense of a scientific education.

Peter - you're full of it. Call the park and ask them. The proof that you offer is that "creationsits are luddites who won't use computers." Brilliant.

I provided two links. The first link is for a course in person... and part of the course is the traditional geology. You guys will believe anything if it is anti-Bush.

Peter - I also find it funny that after I prove the article wrong, you go on to qualify the lie in a way that one can only go there in person. That is not what the article says.

Case closed.

Walker, you've done it again!! ;-) I know how you love to stir up conversation, and you certainly have with this particular piece. GOOD FOR YOU!!!

Leah - this is the third time someone has posted this story on gather. It's kind of tired already, especially since many have proven it to be a false story.

Bush gets blamed for everything, lets see now did Bush start the flood????

Don, The only thing closed is your mind.

The CASE is anything but closed.

Posting the official Park Service web site does not close the case, because the allegations are that the Park Rangers have been muzzled.

I have not made the claim that Park Service Rangers are muzzled THEY DID:

Look at the PEER (Park Employees for Environmental Responisibility web site for December 28

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

"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 "

There are more than sixty sites (on only one search) related to this controversy, and they do not agree on all the details. That is why the stories keep appearing on Gather.

Other reports are on

Go to Badscience.com

Or, look at "Bush Administration Forbids National Park Service From Giving Age Of Grand Canyon" on theologyweb.com

So, Don, PARK EMPLOYEES SAY THEY ARE MUZZLED

You say they are not and claim that a Park Service website 'Proves" the case.

I don't know if Park Service employees are being constrained from mentioning geological facts or not, but neither do you.

Case Closed


PS I do not think creationsits are luddites, I noted that the discrepancy between what the Park Service posts and says might imply that.

Gosh-what a beautiful place...............

If it's true it's nuts. Maybe the Theosophists ought to impose their views on creation of the universe on the Park Service too.

On separate but equal for Creationism vs. Geology. Seems to me that a more responsible position for Creationists would be to admit that science offers a different explanation for natural phenomena. That's what they're asking scientists to do for Creationism. Fair is fair.

BTW on a completely tangential note, the term "Luddite" derives from a group of weavers in the early 19th century (I think) who destroyed Jacquard looms. They claimed their leader was Ned Ludd, an imaginary person. Luddites aren't just uncomfortable with new technology, they want to stop it. E. g. opposition to Frankenfoods could be considered Luddite.

Let's start with facts, and try not to confuse people. First:

PEER = Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

NOT "Park Employees for Environmental Responsibility"

"PEER is a national non-profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values."

It's such a beautiful place. pretty, pretty and a wonder.

This story is about the SUPPRESSION of a book on the Grand Canyon with a different view on the creation of the Grand Canyon (click link).

"A letter written by Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of Public employees for environmental responsibility (PEER), to Mary Bomar, director of the National Park Service, on December 28, 2006, asked for the removal of the book from park bookstores and museums." Since they did not get this approval, they are now making it a big issue by lying about it. It's that simple.

Democratic Underground agrees with my take on this story - and you know how much they hate Bush. Go read the post and follow ups.

I had not heard this either. I'm so glad I joined Gather. There is truly a lot of knowledge out there that can be found here. It is truly, truly sad how much our government can control without us even knowing we're being controlled.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYbxUCmLosY

There is a local office of the National Park Service only 4 miles from my office. I will go there tomorrow to find the truth because Doc has brought up many valid points.

I had received this article several times in the past couple of years that have bee repeated in the local press. This may be entirely bogus, but I will ask several Ranger friends what's up.

It breaks down to their oral presentation vs. what the Park Service publishes on their site. What's currently published, upholds scientific fact. The article states that they cannot talk about it.

Right now, I'm interested in learning the truth and whether or not this article should be relegated to Snopes.

Good for you, Walker!!

And Don, it doesn't matter how many times this has been published on Gather. There are thousands of people out there, publishing thousands of pieces a day. It doesn't matter how many "times" it was published, just that this one time it was brought to my attention, and I was able to see it.

Walker, please keep us posted! I am totally enthralled now.

Walker - that sounds like the best thing to do. See for yourself.

Don

Yes, there is a controversy over the creationist book in the Park Service gift shop, but there is also the controversy over the Park Rangers ability to share geologic time.
.
It is clear that you did not look at the PEER post.

"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..."

This is a web site that encourages "anonymous activism", so no one has spoken for the record. That does not inspire confidence, but then the folks may be afraid for their jobs.

In any event, it is not some liberal plot, it is an accusation (Park Rangers muzzled) put forth by anonymous federal employees.

You don't have to agree, just read the blooming thing!

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801

I will have to check back through my source lists, but there is a Christian magazine that teaches its readers how to legally disrupt talks at museums when these 'untruths' (as they call anything not biblical;) is being discussed.

Peter - I read the article. It only says that "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."

Obviously, that is a vague statement and can be refuted by visting their website. Afterall, the website is a very public part of the Grand Canyon Park Service. And Peter, to be very clear, no where in that article does it state specifical that park personnel are not allowed to talk about the geological age. Your quote above proved nothing and in fact has been refuted. You need to come with something better than that.

Don - the GCNP has not been allowed to voice the geological age for some time now. It isn't that the information is hidden but it won't be offered. That is the problem. You continue on with the nonsensical arguement that somehow because the information is readily available that that changes what the "official" position of not telling audiences means.

Joe - says who? Show me where it says that.

Hey Peter, don't be maligning the luddites by saying they are part of the religious right! Thank you please.

Non-critical thinking, libereral drones awash in the echo chamber. Back it up, Joe.

"Official" is in quotes. The policy is not written down but as someone who has been there and taken the tour in the 1960s (when the information was bragged about) and in the 2004 (when the information wasn't even mentioned), I tend to believe it is omitted for a reason. Something is behind it.

OK - It was not my intention to stir up a hornet's nest. I went to the local office of the National Park Service.

I was told (off the record and no names used), that they have verbal instructions not to speak about or answer questions regarding the age of the Canyon during walk through lectures. A Ranger was fired two months ago because a creationist was offended.

There is no email or paper memo to this effect...it has been verbally passed to the Rangers by their supervisors.

That is sad because the facts are never the enemy.

I also meant to mention that we discussed Doc's link to the official NPS website.

I was told (still off the record) that the page exists only to keep scientific types off their ass. Any verbal contradiction to information contained in the book they're now selling will result in immediate dismissal.

Joe T.,

I agree 100%. I also did not mean this to become a politically oriented thread. You'll not that the word "Administration" is included in the article. This does not mean the man at the top, but some obscure department underneath.

I wonder if some strange supervisor somewhere in the labyrinth of the bureaucracy, didn't take it on themselves to interpret "born again Christian" to be "anti science nutcase".

I think for some people it is difficult to believe. Let's admit it. It is rather bizarre to omit such important geological science when conducting a tour.

So in other words, there is no policy. It's just wink-wink and everybody gets in line. Please. Who would beleive this? Only liberal Bush haters.

You can't come back with NO policy and just word of mouth. This is not how our country operates. You guys are losing it.

Vicky, what is a "dicatomy" is that some type of religious sect?

Candace - I didn't write this article. I am merely pointing out how absurdly false it is. I have not made one statement about how I feel about the Grand Canyon. As far as I am concerned, it's as the geologists say it is. Leave me alone - you haven't even read what I've said.

George - the spelling was wrong, but I am sure you can figure out that Vicky meant to say "dichotomy." If you still don't know what it is, go look it up.

WHAT WE KNOW: there is an unwritten policy and we don't know who created the policy, but by golly, it is an official policy and all adhere to it or else!

WHAT THAT MEANS: moonbats will say and believe anything if it reflects poorly on Bush.

Vicky - I am kind of like you in that I buy into the traditional science, but 'time' is something that we mortals perceive differently from God. But, only God knows for sure.

Didn't someone point out that there was a firing over this? The Grand Canyon docents do not state the truth about the history of the Grand Canyon. This is pretty serious, Don. It's not about Bush because Bush couldn't care less. Someone in his administration does and used his/her influence to alter the dissemination of the truth. It's serious business.

Joe - no written policy, and no credit taken for the unwritten policy. Just 'someone' in the Bush administration. Serious stuff... NOT.

Ok guys. This originally had zero to do with politics, but evrytning to do with a paticular problem with oujr current adminstration (no personalities inserted here). It was only published here be beecause I know it to be ruth from my persoal Experiece)

Walker, thanks for following up on this personally.

I am sorry that it seems to be true. It is no gain for people of Faith or for the free exercise of religion to use the coercive power of the State to muzzle scientific evidence.

Don's denial of this as an issue (one book in the gift shop), a tempest in a teapot (an aleegation of an unofficial policy, big deal), and then as a politically-inspired attack by liberals on conservatives, seemed a bit unreal to me.

The political interpretation is in the PATTERN of accomodations and preferences (in the NIH, at the CDC, and the DOE) for the opinions and beliefs of religious conservatives at the expense of the scientific consenus. This is an unprecedented "establishment" of religious sentiments by the Federal government.

I believe you Walker because I don't think that you would lie about going into the NPS. That would just be a terrible lie to tell and I don't believe you would do that. Don, on the other hand, has no qualms about calling you a liar, and he can believe what he wants as he obviously already does and has been doing.

Vicky, don't think dichotomy is the correct word. My faith is considered to by many to be a "fundamentalist faith", but we do not believe that Genesis is literally true either. What we believe sounds an awful like what they call, "terra-forming" in some science fiction works.

I believe that Genesis is literally true, that it is a true account of human history where it treats of human history.
What if Genesis is true, which book in the gift shop is legit?

All right. This appears a hot button on both sides.

For those who are interested, I wrote a FICTION novel that contains my interpretation of what happened when...

"In The Beginning" ISBN 1-4116-3848-4

I have a special problem with those who "believe" in oral tradition that wasn't written down for several thousand years...and then believe a translation that was politically organized over a thousand years later.

Personally, I've seen the original texts, and the current translations are major wrong, given the context.

King James wanted stuff to point to his point of view, so his translators made them...WRONG!