Do we really have to wait until 2009 for this nonsense to stop? Yes.

The geologic record has been edited out of science.

I'm feeling like I'm on the other side of the looking glass.

The regressive ignorant bush administration is disgusting. Loathing them is too good.

Maybe not. Congress could ask officials of the NPS to change their policies or explain them in front of committees and the press. In the recent Dover, PA case creationists withered on the stand or decided not to take the stand altogether.

Oh, so now lberals are experts in geology as well as climatology.

Next will be their musings in theology.

"Gag rule"? Where is that mentioned?

I dunno about *lberals* in general, but geologists are experts in geology.

Bush won't be satisfied until everyone in the country is as fucking stupid and ignorant as he is.

Or as stupid as Al.

Why Al? Do you have a question about age constraints on the Chuar group or sandstone provenance changes in the Colorado River delta?

I would say this is a gag-rule:

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.'"

Well, hold on a little. Although the stuff about the book is accurate, I don't see anything literally supporting this:

It's absurd, for example, that scientists working for the National Park Service can't answer questions from visitors about the age of the Canyon. A practical "gag rule" to hide accurate information from the public is just indefensible.

The actual state of affairs, which is bad enough, is this (from the letter from PEER to the National Park Service, available on their web site):

At the same time, Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists' "young earth" claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as "no comment" and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters.

So it's not that they're not allowed to answer, but that their requests for a statement of policy have gone unheard, possibly because the NPS is embarrassed by the implications of their policies.

"Oh, so now lberals are experts in geology as well as climatology.

Next will be their musings in theology.
Posted by: Al on December 30, 2006 at 4:06 PM"

Facts do have a well-known liberal bias.

And the assault on reason, facts & common sense continues. It isn't a liberal position to look at the established science and recognize it as such.

At last, the ultimate vindication of postmodernism: Its embrace by the American Right.

Oh, so now lberals are experts in geology as well as climatology.

This is fakeAl_n correct?

On the chance that it isn't, Al, drop me a line, my partner is a spiritual liberal geophysicist who does climate related research. I'm sure we can help you out with any questions you may have.

Vote for me.

My God created the universe 14.7 Billion years ago. He is much older, and wiser, and more powerful than Bush's wussy little God.

And if neither God exists, at least I can say that I've got a bigger imagination. That's gotta be worth something.

Al's problem this time is that the question isn't one of degrees of expertise, the question is whether one has gotten to first base, or better, whether one is on the base paths at all. Since Lyell, if not before, the antiquity of the earth has been well established, and is now confirmed by radiometric methods as firmly as any scientific truth can be. No truth is more fundamenal to the science of geology.

There is no proper evidence to the contrary. Citations of scripture aren't evidence at all, only abuses of ancient texts. As for the validity of the "scientific evidence" of a young earth, see the link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

just out of curiousity, i checked the web site for the red rock canyon natural conservation area near las vegas, which is run by the bureau of land management. i visited the canyon a couple of months ago and as i recall, the area's information center dates the geologic history of the canyon's main feature back 65 million years. the web site confirmed my memory. apparently there are some government agencies still able to present science uncensored. of course, the bushies still have a couple of years to silence them. in any case, red rock is absolutely incredible.

i seem to recall a similar controversy regarding the nps and civil war battlefields. seems there was/is an element in the nps management that wanted to eliminate or at least minimize any mention of the war's main issue, slavery. we're supposed to believe the war happened on its own accord and not because of a nasty, dirty, shameful part of our history. the hell with truth. it might upset somebody.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just silly!

Now a God born of a virgin who cares only about what we do with our private parts and the fate of blastocysts -- now THAT is reasonable!

And surely some "scientist" will argue that every other scientist is just wrong! So publish the controversy!!

I heard about the creationist book before I visited the Grand Canyon bookstore about a year ago and made it a point to look for it. It was on a little corner table with some New Age spiritual stuff (of which the bookstore carries a considerable amount). It was nowhere near the science section. Its placement was the bookstore staff's attempt to make the best of a bad situation. Has anyone been there more recently?

A huge steaming load of anti-religion propaganda.

From the NPS web page for the Grand Canyon (my emphasis)

The Grand Canyon is more than a great chasm carved over millennia through the rocks of the Colorado Plateau...

On another page it says,

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

From the South Rim handout available on-line as a PDF, it says:

How old?
The rocks exposed within Grand Canyon range from the fairly young to the fairly old (geologically speaking). Kaibab limestone, the caprock on the rims of the canyon, formed 270 million years ago. The oldest rocks within the Inner Gorge at the bottom of Grand Canyon date to 1.84 billion years ago. For comparison geologists currently set the age of Earth at 4.5 billion years.

"As long as all sides are presented, I don't see any problem with it."

I wonder what "sides" they are referring to. The publisher's tag line (Master Books), says it all:

"Publishing Creation-based materials for all ages that defend the Bible from the very first Verse."

For years, Colorado River guide Tom Vail told people how the Grand Canyon had formed over the evolutionary time scale of millions of years. Then he met Jesus. Now, Tom has a different view of the Grand Canyon. According to a biblical time scale, the Grand Canyon can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old, and that is what Tom now believes.

You guys will believe anything put in front of you, as long as it is written in a left-leaning god-hating slant.

It's astonishing (and dismaying) that the religious dogma of creationism has the political clout it enjoys under the Bush administration. Flat earthers should sue for equal time.

There's even a fringe candidate for president, a freakishly entertaining wacko, who has found it useful to have an "intelligent design advisor" on his campaign staff. What a hoot! One more thing: the intelligent design advisor is a 15-year-old boy. That's one hot-shot political team.

Care to elaborate Red State Mike? (If that's the real one. It doesn't read like a real Mike comment.)

You guys will believe anything put in front of you, as long as it is written in a left-leaning god-hating slant.

Posted by: Red State Mike on December 30, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

What, Mike? There ISN'T such a book about the Grand Canyon? The whole thread is made up? What are you trying to say, exactly?

g.w. bush....like a rock...

only dumber..

Global
Care to elaborate Red State Mike? (If that's the real one. It doesn't read like a real Mike comment.)

Yea it was me. The comments of Steve Benen did not sound realistic. So I did a quick 40 second google and check of the NPS website, and found out that the website and the pamphlets that they hand out at the Grand Canyon *today* clearly state geologic dates of origin. That flies in the face of the facts presented in his post, and all the blindly following snark that has been posted in this thread. Ergo the counter-snark.

Pat
The whole thread is made up? What are you trying to say, exactly?

From Steve Benen's post up front...

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

From the NPS official pamphlet handed out to people as they enter the park...

The rocks exposed within Grand Canyon range from the fairly young to the fairly old (geologically speaking). Kaibab limestone, the caprock on the rims of the canyon, formed 270 million years ago. The oldest rocks within the Inner Gorge at the bottom of Grand Canyon date to 1.84 billion years ago. For comparison geologists currently set the age of Earth at 4.5 billion years.

Allowing (if meant minimally as implied by the word itself) a book of a certain off-beat sort like the creationist take on the GC, could be defended as upholding free expression, I suppose. But gagging the guides about the geologic age is a different matter, and makes the US a laughing stock before the world.

Geneva Conventions, the Grand Canyon...all these other GC's simply must be renamed!

But the book, exists, right Mike? And is sold by the NPS, despite their own people's widespread opposition to it? Or am I still being left-leaning and God hating?

Pat
But the book, exists, right Mike? And is sold by the NPS, despite their own people's widespread opposition to it?

The NPS doesn't dictate government policy. They carry out orders.

Or am I still being left-leaning and God hating?

Beats me. I was just being snarky.

You guys will believe anything put in front of you, as long as it is written in a left-leaning god-hating slant.

Well, I'll grant you this: we tend to believe that there are influential people in this country who do not respect reason and the scientific method, and that the Bush administration is sympathetic to their views.

We also tend to believe that disrespecting reason and the scientific method is direct evidence of extreme stupidity.

Wait a minute, I always thought the Grand Canyon was created when Paul Bunyan dragged his ax through Arizona. No?

Steve Benen's quote:

There are a couple of angles to this story. It's absurd, for example, that scientists working for the National Park Service can't answer questions from visitors about the age of the Canyon. A practical "gag rule" to hide accurate information from the public is just indefensible.

I have to say, it's usually not this easy. He threw up a softball today. Thanks Steve!

BTW - I don't know who is right about what the NPS can say now, but you shouldn't go blowing off RSM's criticisms until you get more info. I can confirm the traditional geological commentary in that pdf. My suspicion is that what goes on websites is more permissive because it isn't heard directly by location visitors, which are more likely to voice impressions about their experience.

The NPS doesn't dictate government policy. They carry out orders.

Uh, that's the whole point, there, Mike. But you were probably just being right-leaning and science hating. Hey, buddy! No offense. Just being snarky.

Wait a minute, I always thought the Grand Canyon was created when Paul Bunyan dragged his ax through Arizona. No?

Ass crack of the gods.

Off Topic: Mike, have you seen this essay about troop morale? I preserved it for posterity because the author has as big a fetish for the Honor Code as I do.

Pat
But you were probably just being right-leaning and science hating.
Nope, since I am a scientist. And I had faith that science was not being ignored by the NPS. It only took me 40 seconds to prove it.

Aren't you in fact happy that the NPS is accurately reporting geologic dates in their official pubs? Why do I detect a slight sense of wistfulness here? You guys should be celebrating that I pointed out Steve Benen was FOS in this thread, that science is being correctly reported by Bush's NPS.

Ah, Kevin.

How exquisite. Liberals showing their true colors: stifling dissent and opposing viewpoints.

Why should you people care if the NPS sells a creationist book? You don't like it, don't buy it. Let the market decide if the book has any merit (and since it's still on the shelves, apparently there are enough people out their who are interested in it.)

It's called the marketplace of ideas. But I realize you guys can't stand markets.

Neil
My suspicion is that what goes on websites is more permissive because it isn't heard directly by location visitors..

Neil, that's a PDF of the handout they give to every car that enters the gate.

So the letter the park employees sent out is a lie?

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon.

Perhaps there is a difference between a pamphlet available there and what the "interpretive rangers" are allowed to say? Perhaps if you weren't a right-wing asshole intent on finding anti-religious propaganda where there is simply a desire to keep religious nuttery out of our science you could tell the difference between human beings and paper.

Looks like you threw up, well not so much a softball, but your reflexive anti-intelligent discussion bile again. Here's an idea, try reading for comprehension. It will do you good.

Red State Mike -- I agree that a "gag rule" is likely overstating the case, as there is little to support that assertion, other than anecdotal statements from PEER.

I expect we might be seeing a revolt in the trenches--NPS staff taking a stiff-kneck, and arguably absurd, "no comment" stance in order to highlight the issue.

RSM, did you actually read the letter? Follow the link? No, you didn't. You just quoted someone else's quote. Obviously. Go read it (like I did) and report back with less ignorance.

Mike: When I said "heard", I meant literally. This looks like a somewhat complex situation, with different standards for different contexts. Wouldn't you agree, that the Rangers should be able to say "I think the GC millions of years old" etc., assuming the accuracy of the claim they really can't (and I think it unlikely the critics of the policy could or would get away with making such a claim up.) (BTW I support "allowing" the creationist book there as part of free speech/market as long as the NPS doesn't "endorse" it in some way.)

PS - to avoid confusion, I earlier referred to "RSM" as an abbreviation for Red State Mike, not realizing there would be an "RSM" posting here for whatever accidental or satirical reason.

Neil, if you read the PEER letter, what they are asking is clear policy on how to respond to someone that asks, "What about my religion that says the Earth is on a few thousand years old?" Policy is silent on that currently.

I saw nothing in their letter that suggests they are prohibited from discussing the age of the Earth or the Canyon, and of course the literature they hand out at the gate is hard evidence on where the NPS stands scientifically.

RSM is a sockpuppet of SecularAnimist used to attack me specifically. Coward.

- break -

Global, thanks for the link. Discuss it with you when the right thread pops up.

Woah a minute. I feel reasonably sure after reading this site for years that I am the only evangelical creationist political junkie here. So, could we get something straight. The Bible does NOT teach that God created the Grand Canyon in a 24 hour day, a 24 thousand year day or any other time limit. We creationists who actually read the Bible know this. The use of "day" is strictly symbolic. If not, why is the 7th day that has never closed thousands of years long? The Grand Canyon could have taken eons of time to produce--and probaly did-- and the scriptures are silent on that matter. So, if you are going to sling insults, please sling them at the pursed lip and clucking crowd who doesn't have a clue what the Bible teaches.

As a Pastafarian, I demand equal time.

Everyone needs to fess up and admit that the Grand Canyon, like school board officials in Oklahoma, was formed by flour and dough, first into gemelli, then through the heated dexterity of Mario Batali, into fusilli, and finally reached a steady state of vermicelli last Thursday evening.

The disrespect that the Bush Admininstration shows for the belief system of Pastafarians is unAmerican, flawed science, and slightly al dente.

Ciao!

The last time I visited Grand Canyon National Park, one of the visitors' centers had a topographical model of the park showing that the Grand Canyon itself cuts through an upraised plateau, flowing from lower terrain to the northeast to still lower terrain to the southwest. No one with an IQ larger than their shoe size can look at this topographical model and imagine that the canyon was cut through a hill from one side to another by Noah's Flood. That's assuming they were inclined to believe that canard in the first place.

Out here in the middle of the Pacific, the past few Hawaii State Science & Engineering Fairs have seen a marked decline in participation from students attending evangelical schools like Word of Life Academy. It's all part of a very disturbing trend, exacerbated by institutional willingness to pander to these ignorant bullies.

At least the Science Fair out here took the official position that if the evangelicals didn't want their kids to participate for fear of exposure to new ideas that conflict with theological doctrine, that's their problem and the students' loss.

We have a family of home schoolers that live in our townhouse complex, and the parents just rip at the supposed lack of quality in public education, and brag that thier children have never attended any formal school. Right now, they have an eight-year-old who barely knows her ABCs, and a 14-year-old who is -- well, the kindest thing I can say is that he's severely challenged socially, because he's not allowed to have friends outside of his church. He was actually grounded by his parents when they first moved in here and not allowed to even step outside his home for a month, simply because he was caught hanging out with a couple of neighborhood boys by our stone wall. Heaven forbid that he should interact with the infidels!

I realize that these people aren't representative of evangelical Christians in general, but I am beginning to meet more and more born-again militants whose "faith" somehow grants them license to not only be obnoxious to other "non-believers", but to stunt their own children's emotional and mental growth and well-being.

It's really sad.

Pathetic, yes.

But what is really pathetic are the excuses of apologists for the Bush Administration.

I am reposting this since for some weird reason I got a message about my post being reviewed by the blog owner, which I never saw before. (Hence I am trying again since why should I wait - I never had to before....) Make your own judgment:

Look at http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder6.html

8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship. To accomplish this, an on-going dialogue must be established. Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. 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. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events.

(See section 7.5.4 of Management Policies. Also see Director's Order #11B: Ensuring Quality of Information Disseminated by the National Park Service)

See http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/11B-final.htm

The Bush Administration is (to quote a really good high school history teacher) the epitome of assininity!

That last sentence is my own. Note that the official instructions are to use scientific sources - So, can we see real quotes from sources about there being a gag order or similar, not just take it on claims?

The Park Service permits Indian mythology books and stories about the land etc. in their stores. None of this accords with the geological science of the canyon, and nobody expects it to, even though some Indian people are resentful of science too. So let the Creationist book be put in the shelf with the Idnain myuthology and put the science out front, and tattoo "know-noting" on the forehead of the nitwit official who would try to gag science.

Jake Page

How long before the Earth is the center of the universe again? We are going boldly into the past.

The primary requirements for membership in today's Repukeliscum Party: Total stupidity.

Science is the mark of Caine to these people. It used to be that a sensible fiscally prudent person might be a Republican. Today, only religious fanatics are members of the Repukeliscum Party. There is no Republican Party any longer.

I realize that these people aren't representative of evangelical Christians in general, but I am beginning to meet more and more born-again militants whose "faith" somehow grants them license to not only be obnoxious to other "non-believers", but to stunt their own children's emotional and mental growth and well-being.

It is astonishing to me, a Ph.D. statistician, that many who are truly moronic and stupid home school their children. The blind leading the blind, in most cases. Home schooling can work, but does not in many cases.

dataguy
The primary requirements for membership in today's Repukeliscum Party: Total stupidity...It is astonishing to me, a Ph.D. statistician...

Nice, very nice. Mature level of discourse for a PhD or a playground. What back-of-the-magazine ad did you get your degree from?

Ironically, they can still say the rocks are nearly 2 billion years old, but can't say on the canyon.

I wonder if there's a similar controversy at the Columbia Gorge and Scablands - because that feature is less than 20,000 years old (and nearly as large as the Grand Canyon), as it formed from the sudden destruction of the ice sheets.

Isn't the basic point that some religious right people have the clout to pressure the park service to do something that aligns more closely to the religious right's point of view and not necessarily to a point of view that is more tolerant and mainstream?

No group should have that level of power--I certainly wouldn't want atheists to force the park service to strike any suggestion that God had a hand in making the Grand Canyon (it took God a few hundred thousand years, but he did a pretty good job, what with how slow water erodes stone and all) but no one should be forced to put up with my beliefs, either.

How about we just leave the beliefs at home and try to put out the best possible information we have, and keep it academic, okay?

The fossil record shows that 99% of all species that have ever existed on the Earth are no longer alive. If I knew an architectural designer and 99% of his designs were failures, I would be hesitant to apply the label "intelligent" to his designs.

Mike, I think you need to calm down. I don't see the God-hating in Steve Benen's post. I do see scientists who are pissed that some folks are being intrusive, shall we say, with their religous beliefs.

Steve Benen must not have read the actual Park Service Directive he complains about here.

I urge everybody to check out the link, then go to the next link, entitled something like "See the 2005 NPS Director's Order #6 On Interpretation." Then go to Section 8.4.2.

The "2005 NPS Director's Order #6 on Interpretation" Section 8.4.2 mandates that explanations "must be based on the best science available." It goes on to mention scholarly journals, peer review, etc. Nothing about creationism.

When you actually read this link, you see that Steve Benen is lying/spinning.

I see that NeilB (6:55 PM) above noticed the same thing I did - Steven Benen's complaint is totally unfounded.

Ironically, Benen's own link proves him wrong!

(Thank God for the internet!)

I see that our sock puppet bitch going down on frazier is back--what up, fool?

Lying spimnning about what?

He's quoting a letter from the employees.

Also, there's no book in the science section 'How Babe the Blue Ox made the Canyon' or 'How Coyote Tricked the River into a Canyon.'

The point is here not that their policy says anything - indeed, some of it says the book shouldn't be sold there - but that they are following the Administration instead of any prior rules or ethics.

And there's a big difference between saying 'the rocks are two billion years old' and 'millenia' is... thousands of years. The canyon formed over the last hundred thousand years, it was there when there were ice sheets, it was there before the ice sheets, it was there after the ice sheets... And all that was before the 'millenia' of written human history.

Sticking with a handle tonight Kenneth/Frazier/Havlicek?

"2005 NPS Director's Order #6 on Interpretation" Section 8.4.2 mandates that explanations "must be based on the best science available." It goes on to mention scholarly journals, peer review, etc. Nothing about creationism.

Were that the case, then a book with a creationist viewpoint wouldn't be allowed, seeing as how creationism has nothing to do with science.

But somehow, a book with a creationist viewpoint IS allowed--

From the description:

Explore the majesty and beauty of one of God’s greatest creations Includes 20 Essays from Leading Grand Canyon Authorities: Steve Austin, John Baumgardner, Ken Cumming, Duane Gish, Werner Gitt, Ken Ham, Bill Hoesch, Russ Humphreys, Alex Lalomov, Henry Morris, John Morris, Gary Parker, Andrew Snelling, Keith Swenson, Larry Vardiman, Tas Walker, John Whitcomb, Carl Wieland, & Kurt Wise • See the canyon from a biblical perspective and understand how it f its into the flood of Noah • Exquisite photographs of the Grand Canyon with explanatory essays from top authorities of the canyon • A layman ’s guide to the geological &religious implications of the canyon For years, Colorado River guide Tom Vail told people how the Grand Canyon had formed over the evolutionary time scale of millions of years. Then he met Jesus. Now, Tom has a different view of the Grand Canyon. According to a biblical time scale, the Grand Canyon can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old, and that is what Tom now believes. Come and tour the Grand Canyon with Tom Vail as your guide. Filled with stunning photos that will take your breath away and stimulate your imagination, this book also has many facts about the Grand Canyon presented in a biblical light. A beautiful gift book as well as an intellectual pleaser, this compilation is sure to be a family favorite.

Huh? What science was was used to present things in a "Biblical" light? Or is that someone trying to skirt the rules by claiming there to be facts inherent in the book?

Something's not right here. My view is that a book like this is fine--I don't have a problem with it. But if someone actually pressured park officials to stop talking about the particulars of how old it is, that's wrong. There's certainly room to present both views without pressure or censorship.

Er, I don't know what Grand Canyon y'all are talking about, but I was there early this summer, and they definitely have plenty of documentation about the geological age of the formations. (Admittedly not as good as the one they have up at Bryce Canyon...) Maybe the guys at the North Rim didn't get the memo?

The GCA bookstore has it listed in the Natural History section--which seems a bit odd--as according to their description it is:

Laden with beautiful photographs coupled with Biblical quotes, this book is a creationist view of how the Grand Canyon came to be. Compiled by a Colorado River guide, its 104 pages include 23 essays by some of the leading modern-day theologians and creationists.

Ironically, Benen's own link proves him wrong!

Er, no.

The point that PEER is making on behalf of the Park Service Employees is that despite the official directive on giving the age of the canyon based on geologic estimates that there is still pressure from the Bush administration and its lackeys in the Park Service to NOT give to give those scientific estimates.

Lackeys like Dave Barna at NPS headquarters who told upset Congressmen that there would be a review of the policy on allowing the sale of the creationist tome in the Park store -- only to never review the policy.

Remember the kid at NASA who was blocking the scientists there from talking about the Big Bang? Or the government scientists who've been prevented from presenting their research on climate change?

Same shit, different government agency.

Nice sockpuppeting, by the way, but all the different handles do is just make you sound like a chorus of dummies. You'd be better off minimizing the damage by just sticking to one mentally challenged voice.

A commenter above noted that there are books with mythical references there (Native American stories), but this creationist book seems to be in the Science section, which is inappropriate. In any case, there seems to be some ambiguity about the policy issues, given the claims of what employee are expected to say versus the specs given in NPS Director's Order #6 on Interpretation" Section 8.4.2. This needs clearing up.

But zippy way above says it was among New Age stuff etc,...

Perhaps it is now, but a couple of years ago, it wasn't.

The next vacation, we went to the John Day Fossil Beds in Oregon, I asked about the age of the fossils specifically and got a non-answer "There is controversy about that."

Why is it when the right points out examples of stupid political correctness, why don't they ever point to examples like this? I guess it's politically incorrect to point out that the left doesn't have a monopoly on political correctness.

lojfrc
Mike, I think you need to calm down. I don't see the God-hating in Steve Benen's post.

Oh, he's not god hating, I'm sure. I'm snarking. It was just fun to see the choruses of "Woop! Woop! Woop! Fundies are minding the store!" and then visit the NPS website and see (use Carl Sagan voice here) "billions and billions of years old."

Steve Benen complains that National Park employees are being censored. Benen implies that the Bush Administration is caving in to pressure from Fundamentalists and ordering Park employees not to talk about the age of the earth.

Read the link and you see this is nothing more than a group of Park employees who are trying to ban a book from the bookstore. That's it.

Nobody is being muzzled - except people who may want to purchase the book.

was formed by flour and dough, first into gemelli

all hail gemelli, the King of the short pastas!

"The canyon formed over the last hundred thousand years, it was there when there were ice sheets, it was there before the ice sheets, it was there after the ice sheets... And all that was before the 'millenia' of written human history."

The canyon is millions of years old, not hundreds of thousands. Also, the immediate area around the canyon was not glaciated in any of the ice ages since the canyon was formed. The nearest continental ice sheets were near the Canadian border, though there were glaciers in the San Francisco Peaks near Flagstaff.

Bill D.

I wish the creationists would bring a more diverse array of geological questions to the public's attention.

Early life, Banded Iron formations, Snowball Earth and Cap carbonates, Ediacaran fauna, Cambrian radiation, Hyperoxic Carboniferous insects, P/T extinction event, Marine anoxic events, PETM, ELMO, K/T impact, Antarctic ice record . . .

Come on guys, break out Genesis and tell us what we're looking at.

A few geology questions for the creationists here:

If the world's many fossils were laid down during the flood in a sedimentary matrix which preserved them, where did that sedimentary matrix come from? Since, according to the Bible there was only a 1,600 yr time span between the creation and the flood, the question is, is that enough
time for the process of weatherization as we know it (i.e. wind & rain, and this in a world WITHOUT weatherization as we know it - Genesis 2:5,6;8:1;
Morris - The Genesis Record (142-144), Whitcomb - The World that Perished (p34)) to have worn down mountainous igneous granite to the level of sand
and clay?

If there were no mountains before the flood as many creationists claim, from where did so much eroded material come? If you believe that all
this sandstone etc. resulted from one 40 day pounding in the flood (and thereafter a year long subsidence of the waters), how is it that the rock was so totally pulverized but the world's fossils found IN the sandstone etc., and often preserved in minute, delicate detail, were not? If its because they were floating and escaped the pounding, then why aren't they all mixed up everywhere? How did a giant wooden boat survive?

In antediluvian times how did the many ground animals, from worms to moles, live in such a world? What did they use for soil? Where exactly did the "dust of the earth" come from from which God made Adam? And how exactly was Adam supposed to be able to grow crops in an earth created just a short time before? Or is this just a case of God "pre-weathering" the rocky ground for this purpose, kind of like creating light from distant stars "in transit" that only gives the APPEARANCE of age?

Of course if it becomes necessary to invoke the miraculous then the question becomes, is that science (which is not to suggest that the miraculous cannot happen, I don't know)?

Creationism as it is now at least, is so full of knotty improbabilities as to strain credulity to the limit, wouldn't you agree?

I realize that these people aren't representative of evangelical Christians in general,

I think you're just being reflexively liberal and giving the ones you don't know, the benefit of the doubt.

Me, I think that they are representative of these crackpots.

Craigie, we are in agreement again.

This "voting with you" 97% of the time may cost me reelection.

You guys will believe anything put in front of you, as long as it is written in a left-leaning god-hating slant.
Posted by: Red State Mike

Sorry, not hatin' on your god, dude. You see, you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

"You will believe anything put in front of you"

Or a lonely male travel guide will believe anything after spending nine days rafting down the Colorado with a lady and her bible - Keeping in touch with her from Pakistan after reading the bible given him by her, he decided to "walk in the water" with her. He became a "born again Paula" and believed anything she believed. At least Steve Austin goes down into the canyon and tries to "play scientist", Vail is merely spouting some new born mystical belief approved by Paula.

If people would bother to study the textual and authorial history of the Old Testament, they would realize that the Book of Genesis was never intended to be literal history. It was authored by at least 3 different individual (i.e. the J, E and P strands) at different times. Most honest theologians know and freely admit this. Even the Vatican is re-assessing their position in this regard. Go to Barnes and Noble or Borders and get a book by Robin Lane Fox or John Dominic Crossan or even Will and Ariel Durant's writings, and learn how the Bible was really written. It's right there in print and easy to understand. People who take Genesis literally are ignorant and mis- or uninformed.

Behind each faith influenced policy is a scheme to steal money and resources from the American people. Just think Ralph Reed for a moment. So, the questions that come to my mind are the following.

Bush and his buddies would love to plant ten thousand oil wells in the national parks - is this part of their scheme?

Does this designation of the age of the park somehow chip away at its status as a natural treasure?

Nice, very nice. Mature level of discourse for a PhD or a playground. What back-of-the-magazine ad did you get your degree from?

Thanks, Mikey. I appreciate your support.

I'm tired of weak-kneeed liberals. I ain't a weak-kneed liberal. When I see a party of morons, I calls it a party of morons. The Repukeliscum Party opposes stem-cell research. That's a position of the moron wing. They support creationism. That the position of stupidity and lack of thought. In every situation in which science opposes stupidity, the Repukeliscum Party is on the side of stupidity.

I know that political correctness says that I should be gracious and non-critical. Fuck that, Chuck. The Repukeliscum Party has, for the last 14 years or so, had a DELIBERATE policy of appealing to the stupid and the religious, often the same.

Remember also the aphorism attributed to Keynes: "Not all conservatives are stupid. But, all stupid people are conservative." That's certainly true.

The Democratic Party appeals to enlightened, forward-thinking positive people. The Repukeliscum Party appeals to knuckle-draggers like you, Mikey.

Does anyone disagree that the Republicans would be the minority Party without the racist white vote in the South?

"Does anyone disagree that the Republicans would be the minority Party without the racist white vote in the South?"

Why, yes, I do. It's based on the singularly uneducated and biased assumption that there's a substantial racist voting block in the South today (not to mention the ugly implied assumption that racists only exist in the South).

BTW, Bravo, Red State Mike. I admit that liberals aren't the only ones who can be taken in by a big lie, but it was surely their turn in this case.

Trex writes:
Remember the kid at NASA who was blocking the scientists there from talking about the Big Bang? Or the government scientists who've been prevented from presenting their research on climate change?

Same shit, different government agency.

Trex, of course it's the same. The NASA staff were not claiming that all of NASA was compromised down to everything on the NASA web site and totally throttled with respect to what NASA staff were allowed to say and when. Their complaint was very specific.

Scientists associated with the Grand Canyon are tying to do their job. Outsiders are trying to bring pressure to bear, which in America is fine.

The scientists are pushing back. They think a matter of science, not religion. Wow, big surprise.

dataguy
The Democratic Party appeals to enlightened, forward-thinking positive people. The Repukeliscum Party appeals to knuckle-draggers like you, Mikey.

Way-yull heck, dataguy! Ahhzz gotz a Pee Aitch Dee too! Uhh-huck, Uhh-huck! Ahz an Ang-a-neer and Pooter Science guy! Ahm gonna talk reel smarts like yoo and call librals DUMBO-CRATS soze peepuls listens to what ahhz gotz to say.

Tanks!

Does anyone every use the F word in relation to bush policies? How is this any different than the book burning carried on by the Nazis. The Nazis were simply blatant about stifling ideas that were contrary to their world view---they burned the books. The bush administration does it with subtlety through the exercise of administrative power.

What I find particularly troubling, in addition to what this does to geology and science, is the damage it does to biblical theology. Many
faithful believers do not agree with a literalist interpretation of scripture and see this fundamentalist reading as a travesty that violates a much richer and deeper meaning of the creation story. Now the fundamentalist understanding of scripture gets the official imprimature of the US Govt.

Down goes Frazier wrote: "... this is nothing more than a group of Park employees who are trying to ban a book from the bookstore. That's it. Nobody is being muzzled - except people who may want to purchase the book."

You are nothing more than a weak-minded, ignorant, gullible dittohead neo-brownshirt mental slave of right-wing extremist propaganda, who is incapable of doing anything but robotically regurgitating the scripted talking points that are spoon-fed to you by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News, and the rest of the bought-and-paid-for lying shills of the Republican Fascist Party propaganda machine.

I have been on this topic since a trip to the Grand Canyon (the book was in the science section then).

Here is a comment left by a NASA engineer on my most recent post about this topic:

I'll wager money that there will be a memo in my mailbox when I get back to work after the new year. It will read something like this:

"Dear NASA employee,

In celebration of the new year, the following changes in external communications have been implemented.

1) Stars will no longer be described as "burning balls of gas billions of miles away". The are to be known as "God candles".

2) All references to gravity as "the mutual attraction of matter" will be changed to "intelligent falling".

3) Space Shuttles do not "glide through the air using differential pressure gradients to produce lift". Rather, they are held aloft by angels.

Thank you for your cooperation in correcting these egregious errors in communicating with the public. Please refer all concerns to Isurrendermypension@fbi.gov"

But, Steve Austin says there were only 1,656 years between Adam and Eve and Noah -

As a practical matter, how many tourists to the Grand Canyon are there to do research? Do many actually read any pamphlets, or glance at them and place them in their car to be read along with 78 other papers? Or do they tend to listen to the Park Rangers for info?

When they arrive back home, do they peruse the NPS website? Or do they simply have that "No Comment" in the back of their heads?

It would appear that people flocking to the Native History section to buy Vail's book have been told of this from either watching Christian television or from calls from their collective pastors.

There is a fellow who appears regularly, on tape, on a local TV station dominated by right wing promoters of the John Birch Society - He is from the Panhandle of Florida - Gives lectures and seminars all over the land, about Vail's book. They even run a version in language for Ukranians in the area. Not to mention the work of Coral Gables Ministries with Tom DeRosa and his Creationist Science organization.

So, Mike did not really prove much a'tall.

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.

But liberals don't have any problem looking the other way when it comes to rape rooms, opressed women and the slaughter of innocence in order to avoid offending muslim radicals.

So what's the problem with a book?

"You are nothing more than a weak-minded, ignorant, gullible dittohead neo-brownshirt mental slave of right-wing extremist propaganda, who is incapable of doing anything but robotically regurgitating the scripted talking points that are spoon-fed to you by Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News, and the rest of the bought-and-paid-for lying shills of the Republican Fascist Party propaganda machine." - secular

I have feeling Secular sits up all night perfecting his multi-syllabic rage.

I am unsure why liberals suddenly detest lying so much. They considered lying a virtue in the 90's.

Oh and by the way Secular, have you done some studying up on the Pahlavi Family? They kind of pre-date the 1950's, huh?

"Does anyone disagree that the Republicans would be the minority Party without the racist white vote in the South?" - kenneth

Which was the Democratic base up until 1994, and where both of the last two Democrat Presidents have come from.

Too funny.

Rape, like all other violent crimes, is way up in Iraq. Why were some able to predict, and now acknowledge this fact while other couldn't and can't.

2) All references to gravity as "the mutual attraction of matter" will be changed to "intelligent falling".

Hey, gravity's just a theory, after all.

It certainly marks the death of a thread when RDW or Jay park at the tail end and blather on to an empty stadium, determined to have the last word. On to football.

"Rape, like all other violent crimes, is way up in Iraq." - lojrc

Can't make a comment like that without solid proof. Please present. And are you acknowledging that looking the other way when it comes to oppressing women and slaughtering innocence is prudent in order not to offend the religion of peace.

"It certainly marks the death of a thread when RDW or Jay park...." - GC

We just point out the blatant hypocrisy of the left and then you guys run away.

thethirdPaul: FYI, I've noticed church billboards in the Panhandle advertising anti-evolution camps during the summertime. Getting to be big business. Recently, one of the prime movers and shakers was convicted of tax evasion. Forget his name.

Here it is. Name of Kent Hovind. See http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/45220/pensacola_antievolution_minister_denied.html

innocents. It is slaughtering innocents, not innocence.

As to hypocricy, please see Haggard, the Rev. Ted

"It is slaughtering innocents,.." - GC

You would know.

Why is it when liberals are painted they proffer up an evangelical? As if all things evil emanate from Christianity.

How's this as to hypocrisy:

please see Religion, Peace of

or

see Party, Democratic

Why is it when liberals are painted they proffer up an evangelical? As if all things evil emanate from Christianity.

They just make it so easy, by their very behaviors.

Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart.

Then there is Mark Foley who engaged in internet predation while simultaneously writing the laws against that very behavior.

If hypocricy were a political trait and not simply part of the human condition, you might have a point. But the sad fact is, we are all a little bit hypocritical in one area or another. I can admit this. Can you?

".....we are all a little bit hypocritical in one area or another. I can admit this. Can you?" - GC

I can indeed.

It certainly marks the death of a thread when RDW or Jay park at the tail end and blather on to an empty stadium.

And it curious how the trolls waste so much of their time. Seems that their entire reason d etre backfires.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

First, let me say that I have lots of American friends and colleagues, and I do know that you're not all complete fruitcakes.

WIth that proviso, let me congratulate you all on this latest piece of brilliance. Just when we in the rest of the world had finally stopped pissing ourselves laughing at "freedom fries", this piece of genius emerges.

I'm relaxed about it; I'm confident that enough sane Americans are worried about what's going on in their country that this sort of stuff has a limited shelf life. But in the meantime, it's just fun. Watching evangelical Republicans in action is sort of like the fun the Victorians used to have watching depressed chimps in zoos wanking and throwing shit around their cages, or going to the asylum to laugh at the lunatics.

Keep it up. The rest of the world needs a laugh right now.

"Keep it up. The rest of the world needs a laugh right now." - Ally

Yes, perhaps it will be the tonic needed to innoculate you from the impending collapse of your economy, thrusting you into third world status and/or the possible Islamic takeover.

All fun things to look forward to.

Way-yull heck, dataguy! Ahhzz gotz a Pee Aitch Dee too! Uhh-huck, Uhh-huck! Ahz an Ang-a-neer and Pooter Science guy! Ahm gonna talk reel smarts like yoo and call librals DUMBO-CRATS soze peepuls listens to what ahhz gotz to say.

Well, you're a clear demonstration of the failure of education to .... actually educate. You appear to be a repukelibot, robotically repeating the religious rituals and dogma of the Repukeliscum. How can you be a scientist and in favor of creationism?

"How can you be a scientist and in favor of creationism?" - POed

Do you not think that creationism and evolution can coexist.

Are they mutually exclusive?

GC: "Rape, like all other violent crimes, is way up in Iraq."

Jay the moron: Can't make a comment like that without solid proof. Please present.

Jay, you're too stupid to post here. You've been told that many times and you never learn:

The WRA recently conducted an in-depth study into the sexual abuse of women after receiving continued allegations of such maltreatment since December 2005. While fewer than five cases were reported per year in the Hussein's era, nearly 60 women have been raped in Baghdad since February, while another 80 were abused in other ways, according to the NGO. Please present.

http://tinyurl.com/y572rq

How do you tie your shoes in the morning? Let me guess: bunny slippers.