Grand Canyon not permitted to give its geologic age

[jeff]

More creationist craziness abetted by the administration:
-------------------------------------------


Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release(www.peer.org)

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 anofficial estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“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.’”

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. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “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 [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”

“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch
added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”

###

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred

See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation

8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that parkinterpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship…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. (Emphasis added)

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew

Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”

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

[Inquartata]

Hmmm....

From the Grand Canyon National Park's page at the National Park Service, US Department of the interior, http://www.nps.gov/grca

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

"It offers an excellent record of three of the four eras of geological time"

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

In the FAQ, to the question "How old is the Grand Canyon?":

"That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young."

And to the question "Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?":


"No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada."

[jeff]

Perhaps they should wrap copies of the creationist book in printouts from the website...

[Inquartata]

It certainly couldn't hurt.

[BrianH]

I seriously hope nobody from the Bush administration ever checks out the NPS website! Two years and counting until reason returns (one hopes).

[scrapinpeg]

I wonder if the policy was made by a Bush appointee, or just by career bureaucrats. I wouldn't be surprised if the gift shop decisions are made by a schoolmarmish church lady.

Speaking of schoolmarmish church ladies, anyone here hear about that public elementary school in Delaware where the 4th grade teacher encouraged her class to ostracize a muslim girl and call her names, taught the class that only "the blood of Christ" would save the girl from going to hell with the rest of her family, and more like that? The school's principal backed her up, when confronted. Justice Department stepped in, partly because the school had already come up on the radar before, after similar behavior drove out the school's only Jewish family. (All they got, though, was a concession that the school district would impose "diversity training," which of course only breeds more resentment among those being trained. Problem not solved, teacher and principal of course still there.)

Anyway, should we blame the governor of Delaware's administration, or the individuals and bureaucrats in the school itself? Unless the actions were ordered by the administration, I'd be hesitant to point the finger of blame beyond the school itself.

[jeff]

The material I quoted in the original post claimed that this was due to pressure from Bush appointees. The local park superintendent tried to block sale of the creationist book, and was overruled by Bush's appointees in Washinton, and complaints have been passed up to the director of the national park service. It's clear that it wasn't the decision of a gift shop clerk.

As to, "who to blame?" in the despicable behavior in Delaware, I have to answer "all of the above". Individuals doing improper things are culpable, but so are their supervisors and managers for permitting them to do so.

[scrapinpeg]

According to the Park Service's website, the bookstores are all run by a private nongovernment organization.

The PEER press release is also a rehashing of an October 2004 press release, with essentially the same stuff in it, including the quoted admission that the promised review hadn't happened yet. In the 2004 press release, they quote an official as saying the book is just too popular to withdraw.

I, myself, fail to see the problem here. The bookstores sell a variety of scientifically accurate books about the evolution and geology of the Grand Canyon. They also sell this one book that has a creationist take. Calling for the expurgation of that one nonconforming book smacks of censorship to me. Even if it was a government-owned and operated bookstore, requiring it to provide only secular books would be analogous to requiring public libraries to get rid of their religious nonsecular books.

I dunno, complaining that a popular but silly book is on sale just doesn't get my dander up. Now, if the government was prohibiting the sale of scientific books, then there would be an issue. But allowing silly speech just isn't the same as prohibiting it.

(And as for the pamphlet issue, I'm curious whether the "suppression" complained of is little more than government's refusal to adopt something proposed by PEER itself. Judging from the indignant tone of the organization's output on their website, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.)

[dcmdale]

At first reading, this article reads like the kind of scaremongering that Rush similar right wing commentators engage in. If we break down the verbage, it sounds like there are two essential issues. First, a rather ho-hum decision to include a creationist book in the bookstore (more below). The second would be a much more serious intimation that park personnel were not permitted to discuss the science of the Grand Canyon. While the article strongly suggests the second, it doesn't provide any evidence of say a memo going out to park rangers saying, "Never discuss the age of the rocks." Rather it seems to bootstrap an entire Right-Wing Christian conspiracy out of the existence of a single book in the bookstore. Maybe there is more here that I am not seeing?

The Policy:

The policy quotes strikes me as exactly correct. It establishes the scientific explanation as the only acceptable explanation, but gives guidance to interpreters on how to deal with the 3rd grader who asks about what they learned in Sunday School.

The Book:

(I am not familiar with this book and I am assuming that whatever the contents of this book, the same objections would exist to any creationist literature.)

The recognition of "alternative/crackpot/minority" viewpoints in public libraries and bookstores is always a tough call and runs the gamut from selling a pro-Indian version of Little Big Horn (which I would absolutely expect to see) to a holocaust revision theory (which I would not expect to find at the Holocaust museum, though I might be surprised). Library schools devote a large segment of their graduate Collection Development classes to these issues. A large part of whether this is objectionable has to with how the book is being presented. Were it the only book giving an explanation, I would find it extremely objectionable. If there are 50 books on the scientific view and so labeled and another that is presented as an alternative explanation, it doesn't strike me as that evil.

Practically. If I put myself in the place of the staff member that originally made the decision, I can very well guess why the book is there. If the NPS bookstore has 1,000 family groups / day go through it and surveys are anywhere close to accurate, approximately 300 family groups will be creationist oriented. If there is no acknowledgment of their position, probably 100 family groups will be offended enough to walk out without purchasing anything and 10 will be very vocal in their objections to the "bigotry" of the store. The fact that they often come in already annoyed by the Rangers' refusal to adopt a creationist viewpoint doesn't help.

If I am the manager, the obvious solution is to put out a creationist book, clearly labeled as "alternative/not scientifically accepted/furthering the discussion" that will stop the complaints as well as outsell any other book in the store. And the reality is that many of those people who buy that book will also now be willing to buy the other books as well.

Theoretically. I agree with scrapinpeg's tagline. Censorship is not always the right answer to pushing your views. Often your viewpoint will be better served by letting the reader see both sides and let the reader decide.

[dcmdale]

On the same note: Ignoring 1st Amendment considerations, if "Creation Science" were somehow to be included in high school science curriculum, would that create more creationists... or fewer?

[jeff]

Responding to the last part first: presumably more, which is why creationists try so hard to have it in school curricula. If the effect of added proselytization or pedagogy was to not drive up numbers accepting what was presented, no one would proselytize or teach, regardless of the material.

For the rest: This is not an issue of censorship. Creationists have many venues for expressing their views, and as frequently the case, here they want their views spread in the nation's institutions as well as their own. Instead, this is intervention by administration officials with an agenda of spreading in the national parks beliefs specific to certain sects of one religion. If that were to be done, 1st Amendment in tatters, may as well give the Native American beliefs of the region equal time as scientific truth. As far as censorship goes, Bush appointees have frequently censored material from federal agencies when it contradicts their views on creation, spread of AIDs, global warming, and other topics.

The view that a broad range of views should be expressed in the parks bookstores was specifically addressed in the material I cited: "both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book"

I agree that the quoted material doesn't justify the title. Perhaps there is more to the story. Continuing:

The policy does not 'give guidance to interpreters', nor should it. It's a very bad idea to have agents of the government give guidance to religious interpretation. Instead, it sells a book that presents as science one religion's creation story.

The book I answered this point with the italicized excerpt above. The NPS is not obliged or expected to present every idea of how the world was created as scientific fact, indeed the contrary is true. Having the book in the book store adds the imprimatur of the US govt to one religion's story posed as fact.

A pro-Indian version of Little Big Horn presumably relate to who were the "good guys" and "bad guys" - that's always going to be a matter of opinion, not "historical fact". A book of Holocaust revisionism (or any other denial of history) might appear in a library, as indeed Mein Kampf can be found. But if authorities rejected 22 other books and passed Mein Kampf as the sole approved book you would have to wonder about their motivation.

Practically:It wasn't labeled as "alternative'. It was imposed from afar, and presented as scientific truth, which it is not.

Further, why should the Rangers feel obliged to "adopt a creationist viewpoint", or expected to pander to the annoyance of people who feel everyone must believe their religion? Normally it's those darned liberals that are portrayed as pushing for every belief to be equally worthy of representation.

Theoretically. This is not about censorship. This is government-sponsored proselytization imposed by the administration. Faith based science.

The history of the planet is not one of those "the jury is still out" stories". The geological record makes it very clear that the planet is hundreds of millions of years old, not the several thousand claimed by creationists. No credible scientific authorities conform to the literal Biblical timeline. Perhaps the very fact that the strata visible only yards from the bookstore illustrate this so clearly is what motivates the creationists to try to muddy the waters with pseudo-science.

[jeff]

The article's title wasn't justified by the content, but that's what we get for jumping into the middle of a long-running argument. For more, see http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/b...ontroversy.htm

This page includes multiple articles (representing both sides) and even has a scientist saying it's okay to sell the book, even though he feels its nonsense, and a historian of the Canyon saying it would be fine if it weren't in the science section. On the other hand 'Organizations such as the American Geological Institute and the American Institute of Biological Sciences have expressed concern about the book, saying its presence could leave visitors with the impression that it is endorsed by the Park Service. "The Grand Canyon was formed millions of years ago," said William Ausich, president of the Paleontological Society, according to Religion News Service. "It is the job of the National Park Service to present the best scientific information possible to the public, and the book is complete pseudoscience."'

It includes the following from CounterPunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair12222003.html the Bush administration prevented park rangers from publishing a rebuttal to the book for use by interpretive staff and seasonal employees who are often confronted during tours by creationist zealots.

So, there's censorship if that is what you're looking for.

[dcmdale]

Responding to the last part first: presumably more, which is why creationists try so hard to have it in school curricula. If the effect of added proselytization or pedagogy was to not drive up numbers accepting what was presented, no one would proselytize or teach, regardless of the material.

Intent and actual impact are two different things. Placing the material into the textbook essentially opens the door for classroom discussion of the quality of "creation science" with a biology teacher in control of the discussion. That doesn't strike me as an overall winning situation for my side.

For the rest: This is not an issue of censorship.

Of course it is censorship. It is a content based restriction on access within a particular forum. You disagree with the content, so you don't want it there. Just because it is a liberal position that wants to censor a conservative position doesn't change what it is. Nor does the availability of alternative forums.

Creationists have many venues for expressing their views, and as frequently the case, here they want their views spread in the nation's institutions as well as their own.

The nation's institutions should only be used to convey your religion?

Instead, this is intervention by administration officials with an agenda of spreading in the national parks beliefs specific to certain sects of one religion. If that were to be done, 1st Amendment in tatters, may as well give the Native American beliefs of the region equal time as scientific truth.

Fair enough. I have been to enough NPS bookstores to guess that you would find a book on native beliefs there as well.

As far as censorship goes, Bush appointees have frequently censored material from federal agencies when it contradicts their views on creation, spread of AIDs, global warming, and other topics.

That Bush does it makes it ok?

The view that a broad range of views should be expressed in the parks bookstores was specifically addressed in the material I cited: "both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book"

I am appalled at the ignorance of libraries by whoever wrote this. THAT is complete stupidity.

The obvious question here is how many of the 22 rejected books were simply duplicative of what was already there. Far more relevant would be an understanding of what relationship this book had to the overall inventory of the shop.

I agree that the quoted material doesn't justify the title. Perhaps there is more to the story. Continuing:

The policy does not 'give guidance to interpreters', nor should it. It's a very bad idea to have agents of the government give guidance to religious interpretation. Instead, it sells a book that presents as science one religion's creation story.

When you are doing nature hikes, questions come up. What do you want them to answer? "I am officially only allowed to tell you, under penalty of law, that the rocks are X Million years old." That hardly makes the case look strong. I think that a fair reading of the policy says that the answer should go something like: "Many religions hold different views on the age of the earth. Based on the best available scientific evidence and the things that you can see yourself in this park, we are confident in the dates that we have given." That is how I read the policy and that is how I would expect the question to be answer based on the policy.

The book I answered this point with the italicized excerpt above. The NPS is not obliged or expected to present every idea of how the world was created as scientific fact, indeed the contrary is true. Having the book in the book store adds the imprimatur of the US govt to one religion's story posed as fact.

Your quote needs to be backed up by law. As it is, it is one side's belief in what the law might say.

Simple existence in the bookstore, without more, doesn't strike me as a government imprimatur. If there are 50 other books in the store that talk about X Million year old rocks, have they suddenly lost their status?

A pro-Indian version of Little Big Horn presumably relate to who were the "good guys" and "bad guys" - that's always going to be a matter of opinion, not "historical fact". A book of Holocaust revisionism (or any other denial of history) might appear in a library, as indeed Mein Kampf can be found. But if authorities rejected 22 other books and passed Mein Kampf as the sole approved book you would have to wonder about their motivation.

Depends on why. I can easily see this choice being made. Indeed, it wouldn't shock me to find Mein Kampf in the Holocaust Museum store. [Haven't been there.]

Practically:It wasn't labeled as "alternative'. It was imposed from afar, and presented as scientific truth, which it is not.

Referring to how it is presented in the store. Is it under a big sign saying, "The Real Truth About the Canyon!"?

Further, why should the Rangers feel obliged to "adopt a creationist viewpoint", or expected to pander to the annoyance of people who feel everyone must believe their religion? Normally it's those darned liberals that are portrayed as pushing for every belief to be equally worthy of representation.

The policy, as I read it, would prohibit Rangers from adopting a creationist viewpoint during their official duties.

Theoretically. This is not about censorship. This is government-sponsored proselytization imposed by the administration. Faith based science.

The evidence you have presented so far just doesn't warrant that conclusion.

The history of the planet is not one of those "the jury is still out" stories". The geological record makes it very clear that the planet is hundreds of millions of years old, not the several thousand claimed by creationists. No credible scientific authorities conform to the literal Biblical timeline. Perhaps the very fact that the strata visible only yards from the bookstore illustrate this so clearly is what motivates the creationists to try to muddy the waters with pseudo-science.

If that is true, what is the fear of discussing it?

Going back to the top, while I am a Creationist, I have no more respect for "Creation Science" than you do. If you put any creation science book that I have seen next to a real science text, I have no doubt about the result. If that is true, then why suppress the conversation?

[dcmdale]

The article's title wasn't justified by the content, but that's what we get for jumping into the middle of a long-running argument. For more, see http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/b...ontroversy.htm

This page includes multiple articles (representing both sides) and even has a scientist saying it's okay to sell the book, even though he feels its nonsense, and a historian of the Canyon saying it would be fine if it weren't in the science section. On the other hand 'Organizations such as the American Geological Institute and the American Institute of Biological Sciences have expressed concern about the book, saying its presence could leave visitors with the impression that it is endorsed by the Park Service. "The Grand Canyon was formed millions of years ago," said William Ausich, president of the Paleontological Society, according to Religion News Service. "It is the job of the National Park Service to present the best scientific information possible to the public, and the book is complete pseudoscience."'

I'll have to read these later. I would probably agree with the guy said that it shouldn't be in the Science section, but I haven't been there in years and don't remember the layout of the store.

It includes the following from CounterPunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair12222003.html the Bush administration prevented park rangers from publishing a rebuttal to the book for use by interpretive staff and seasonal employees who are often confronted during tours by creationist zealots.

So, there's censorship if that is what you're looking for.

First reading didn't impress me as a very objective, reliable source. I'll read it again later.

[jeff]

Intent and actual impact are two different things. Placing the material into the textbook essentially opens the door for classroom discussion of the quality of "creation science" with a biology teacher in control of the discussion. That doesn't strike me as an overall winning situation for my side.

Note my 'presumably' wrt intent vs. impact, as a general principle.

In high school, I actually had a teacher trying to do creation science. It's so long ago that I don't think it was called that yet; instead, he referred to it as "reconciling science with Genesis" or suchlike. So, you can have a biology teacher in control of the discussion in a way that potentially (not in this case, as we were uninterested in pursuing his line of discussion) favors your side.

More to the point: so-called "creation science" shouldn't be included in the science class in the first place. To do so gives it a status it doesn't deserve. Teach it in the religion class, or social sciences class, but not in a science class or text.

Of course it is censorship. It is a content based restriction on access within a particular forum. You disagree with the content, so you don't want it there. Just because it is a liberal position that wants to censor a conservative position doesn't change what it is. Nor does the availability of alternative forums.

Several wrong things in one paragraph. It's not a solely liberal position: consider what Barry Goldwater said fundamentalists needed to have done to them. It is preventing government facilities being used as a way of propagating a particular faith. Call that censorship abuses the word.

What you seem to be calling for is the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" tactic, which attempts to inject non-scientific material as an equal peer and disruptive agent in scientific conversations, when it meets none of the necessary criteria. A good way to confuse the uneducated. For a good write-up, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

The nation's institutions should only be used to convey your religion?

And what religion is that, do you think? This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. The nation should teach no person's religion as the truth.

As Stephen Gould said, religion and science are two non-overlapping magisteria that discuss different topics. The theory of how the world developed and works in a falsifiable (eg: you can find evidence that shows it to be false) consistent with the physical evidence is the realm of science. Have a section with religious material by all means - and include everyone's - but don't say that it is scientifically proven. That's a brazen falsehood.

If you want to play this "equal time" argument, then perhaps the National Cathedral should have atheist books in their bookstore saying how everything about religion is bunk. Or, if your church accepts Federal funds, that equal time be given to atheism, or Islam, or Pastafarianism. Would you be willing to let "teach the controversy" to extend to your place of worship? The current Administration has used "faith based" programs sited in religious institutions. Imagine if that came with texts that "teach the controversy" about religion, contradicting your religious beliefs. Separation of church and state protects curch as much as, if not more, than state.

Fair enough. I have been to enough NPS bookstores to guess that you would find a book on native beliefs there as well.

Indeed, and they're in the religion / spirituality / anthropology / social sections rather than the ones describing how the world came about. Or, should we move the books on the Navajo creation story as in http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~ladelia/...tion_story.htm equal representation as your religion as scientific?

That Bush does it makes it ok?

To the contrary. Accusations of censorship are made, I show where it actually has happened.

I am appalled at the ignorance of libraries by whoever wrote this. THAT is complete stupidity.

The obvious question here is how many of the 22 rejected books were simply duplicative of what was already there. Far more relevant would be an understanding of what relationship this book had to the overall inventory of the shop.

It is not stupidity to restrict presentation of scientific materials to, er, scientific materials.

You're saying that non-science books should be placed in the science section of the bookstore because they are under-represented there. That's ridiculous.

When you are doing nature hikes, questions come up. What do you want them to answer? "I am officially only allowed to tell you, under penalty of law, that the rocks are X Million years old." That hardly makes the case look strong. I think that a fair reading of the policy says that the answer should go something like: "Many religions hold different views on the age of the earth. Based on the best available scientific evidence and the things that you can see yourself in this park, we are confident in the dates that we have given." That is how I read the policy and that is how I would expect the question to be answer based on the policy.

I think that would be a reasonable answer (the part starting with "Many religions hold") also, but would say "ask your pastor/iman/rabbi/priest" is better. Note that it flatly (as it should) contradicts the Young Earth creationism in the book that launched this thread.

More important: when government agents get in the business of interpreting religious questions, we run the risk of bring the government into a role it doesn't belong in, viz, the sectarian wars that plagued Europe for many centuries (ref: England and France's internal wars between Catholic and Protestant) and in the Middle East today, eg: Shiite vs. Sunni. Even a devout religionist should shudder at the idea of government uniformed people interpreting religion to the public. That way lies horrors, and that's why our Founding Fathers precluded it. See, a very conservative position, not liberal at all.

Your quote needs to be backed up by law. As it is, it is one side's belief in what the law might say.

Simple existence in the bookstore, without more, doesn't strike me as a government imprimatur. If there are 50 other books in the store that talk about X Million year old rocks, have they suddenly lost their status?

A book placed by government representatives (direct or indirectly imployed) in the science section of the bookstore would indeed indicate that the religious book had been given government imprimatur as scientifically valid.

As far as law: I would hope that's what the law would say, based on the 1st. Your argument that governmental promotion of Christian fundamentalist views of the earth's formation as science is supportable under law is absurd. It clearly and directly foster one specific religion's views via government agency. Let me emphasize that: none of the scientific material is inconsistent with the religious beliefs of most Christians or Jews. Most mainline Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and many other religious faiths accept the teaching of the planet's origin and development (and evolution, as well).

Depends on why. I can easily see this choice being made. Indeed, it wouldn't shock me to find Mein Kampf in the Holocaust Museum store. [Haven't been there.]

I haven't been there either, and would expect it be in an exhibit rather than a shop, but I would bet real money that if it is for sale, it's not in a section that lends the implication that it's considered true.

Referring to how it is presented in the store. Is it under a big sign saying, "The Real Truth About the Canyon!"?

It's in the science section, apparently, which people will take as so indicating.

The policy, as I read it, would prohibit Rangers from adopting a creationist viewpoint during their official duties.

We've drifted from your original claim that "The fact that they often come in already annoyed by the Rangers' refusal to adopt a creationist viewpoint doesn't help.". First you say Ranger's refusal to adopt your viewpoint offends (is that a fact? Prove it); now you say the policy prohibits them from doing what you said they refuse to do.

The evidence you have presented so far just doesn't warrant that conclusion.

Sure it does.

If that is true, what is the fear of discussing it?

Because that's the goal right there, as per the "teach the controversy" ploy. Defeated legally at every turn when trying to teach "creation science" as science, when it's been found in the courts to be a deceptive veneer over religious tenet, creationists (as I mentioned above, the Discovery Institute) fell back on this as an alternate, less direct way to foster their agenda. It too has been ruled as merely a ploy (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

Further reasonable responses can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...559743,00.html

Going back to the top, while I am a Creationist, I have no more respect for "Creation Science" than you do. If you put any creation science book that I have seen next to a real science text, I have no doubt about the result. If that is true, then why suppress the conversation?

See above.

If Creation Science is clearly rubbish, not to mention tied to a very specific set or religious groups, then why do you insist the government promote it?

[SJB]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

[dcmdale]

In high school, I actually had a teacher trying to do creation science. It's so long ago that I don't think it was called that yet; instead, he referred to it as "reconciling science with Genesis" or suchlike. So, you can have a biology teacher in control of the discussion in a way that potentially (not in this case, as we were uninterested in pursuing his line of discussion) favors your side.

I am sure that there are some Creationist Bio teachers, but on the whole I am going to guess it a losing bet. If those who push getting Creationism into the classroom ever win, they will regret it.

As I have said before, if I were trying to change science education, it would be to spend more time on uncontroversial understandings Philosophy of Science, not Creationism.

Call that censorship abuses the word.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that content based restrictions on religious speech are just as much censorship as any other content based restriction. The question is not whether it is censorship, but when such restrictions are permitted or required.

What you seem to be calling for is the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" tactic, which attempts to inject non-scientific material as an equal peer and disruptive agent in scientific conversations, when it meets none of the necessary criteria. A good way to confuse the uneducated. For a good write-up, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

Not hardly. From my work as a mediator, I know that solving problems happens more often when people are talking than one side won't talk because "the other side is wrong."

And what religion is that, do you think? This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. The nation should teach no person's religion as the truth.

I submit that in every point where religions commonly teach, you have expressed beliefs and you have expressed that they should be taught in public schools.

As Stephen Gould said, religion and science are two non-overlapping magisteria that discuss different topics. The theory of how the world developed and works in a falsifiable (eg: you can find evidence that shows it to be false) consistent with the physical evidence is the realm of science.

I have no intention of attacking the philosophical basis of American scientific thought because it derives out of my own theological heritage; however, falsifiability is a slippery slope.

Have a section with religious material by all means - and include everyone's - but don't say that it is scientifically proven.

I believe I said all along that placement within the store could be an issue. I would need to have a better understanding of the actual presentation. Given what I perceive as the lack of objectivity of your sources, I would want some real data on its presentation, not their characterizations. If it is being presented as actual solid science, then it should probably be moved.

If you want to play this "equal time" argument, then perhaps the National Cathedral should have atheist books in their bookstore saying how everything about religion is bunk.

I don't know... they might.

Or, if your church accepts Federal funds, that equal time be given to atheism, or Islam, or Pastafarianism.

I have said in previous discussions that advocacy groups, including religious groups, should not get government funds for any purpose.

Would you be willing to let "teach the controversy" to extend to your place of worship?

I really don't know anything about this "teach the controversy" program. Yes. It is not at all unheard of to invite advocates of opposing views into high school/adult level Sunday School classes to understand their views. That would include scientists who don't believe. Likewise, the Christian college that I attended insisted that I spend one year at a public university as part of ensuring that I understood positions different than theirs.

The current Administration has used "faith based" programs sited in religious institutions. Imagine if that came with texts that "teach the controversy" about religion, contradicting your religious beliefs. Separation of church and state protects curch as much as, if not more, than state.

I don't like Bush either.

I think that would be a reasonable answer (the part starting with "Many religions hold") also, but would say "ask your pastor/iman/rabbi/priest" is better. Note that it flatly (as it should) contradicts the Young Earth creationism in the book that launched this thread.

The "ask your pastor" approach would work for me as well. The points is that as I read the policy, interpreters are properly given guidance that they need to be respectful of religious beliefs while continuing to teach the scientific view. That doesn't lend support to the "end of the First Amendment" fever that seems to be the direction of the original article. Achieving a Constitutional balance between non-establishment and free exercise requires such a balance.

More important: when government agents get in the business of interpreting religious questions, we run the risk of bring the government into a role it doesn't belong in, viz, the sectarian wars that plagued Europe for many centuries (ref: England and France's internal wars between Catholic and Protestant) and in the Middle East today, eg: Shiite vs. Sunni. Even a devout religionist should shudder at the idea of government uniformed people interpreting religion to the public. That way lies horrors, and that's why our Founding Fathers precluded it. See, a very conservative position, not liberal at all.

If this was a matter of interpreting religion we wouldn't be talking. I believe in the First Amendment as written. I don't believe that the First Amendment reads anything like what you want it to read. The question is not a matter of interpretation, but whether a book with religious overtones should be available for sale.

A book placed by government representatives (direct or indirectly imployed) in the science section of the bookstore would indeed indicate that the religious book had been given government imprimatur as scientifically valid.

See above.

As far as law: I would hope that's what the law would say, based on the 1st. Your argument that governmental promotion of Christian fundamentalist views of the earth's formation as science is supportable under law is absurd. It clearly and directly foster one specific religion's views via government agency. Let me emphasize that: none of the scientific material is inconsistent with the religious beliefs of most Christians or Jews. Most mainline Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and many other religious faiths accept the teaching of the planet's origin and development (and evolution, as well).

Goody for them.

We've drifted from your original claim that "The fact that they often come in already annoyed by the Rangers' refusal to adopt a creationist viewpoint doesn't help.". First you say Ranger's refusal to adopt your viewpoint offends (is that a fact? Prove it);

You did it already in your subsequent post.

Because that's the goal right there, as per the "teach the controversy" ploy. Defeated legally at every turn when trying to teach "creation science" as science, when it's been found in the courts to be a deceptive veneer over religious tenet, creationists (as I mentioned above, the Discovery Institute) fell back on this as an alternate, less direct way to foster their agenda. It too has been ruled as merely a ploy (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

It is all a big conspiracy then.

If Creation Science is clearly rubbish, not to mention tied to a very specific set or religious groups, then why do you insist the government promote it?

I said that *I* believe that Creation Science is rubbish. I don't tie all Constitutional positions into my own beliefs.

[jeff]

You say "If it is being presented as actual solid science, it should probably be moved" so it seems that you agree with the complaint I quoted in the opening post. We also apparently agree about the appropriate responses from hypothetical Ranger Rick. Assuming that the PEER people in the opening post didn't misrepresent the situation (in which case, shame on them) we're at least apparently on the same side on the Grand Canyon situation. Fine then we agree that religion should not be presented as science in the book store. Books with religious overtones may be elsewhere in the bookstore - but not presented as fact.

To do so, representing a particular religious view as fact is a direct assault on the First Amendment. That's not my interpretation, or a liberal's interpretation, or even a non-religious one, but a well established principle of law, upheld in many cases. A dismissive "Goody for them" comment about other religions doesn't hide the fact that one religious viewpoint is demanding its beliefs be presented as fact in a government facility.

I can't know whether creationism would lose adherents, rather than gain them, if its advocates became successful in getting creationism and 'creation science' taught in the public schools. I suspect the former. There is after all a history that being done. I expect that the young and impressionable have left classrooms more favorably disposed to it than when they entered. I assume that the people pushing creation science and "intelligent design" (ID) in the public schools are not so stupid as to be working against their goals.

That's not what "teach the controversy" concerns. First, while it's nice you were required to attend a public university for one year, that's hardly what I'm referring to. For one thing, by that time you were old enough (as you say, "high school/adult level") and sufficiently schooled in your belief system to be innoculated to some degree, and perhaps it is viewed as an opportunity to proselytize the others. Even the Amish send their young for a year in the "outside world" before they commit to staying with their traditions.

Instead "teach the controversy" is a tactic adopted by ID and creationism advocates when the courts rejected their direct attempts to teach their religious beliefs in the public schools. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, given your belief in creationism, as it was well publicized shift in tactics in the face of legal failures. My previous posts included a link to a page summarizing it. I recommend you read it.

I'm still troubled by some of your other comments. It's still misuse to call it "censorship" when the government doesn't afford religious groups marketing/proselytization opportunities in the public space. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is equally "censorship" as another instance of "content based restriction". If you want them both called censorship, then so be it, despite the negative connotation it includes. Expression of creationist ideas (or sale of this book) isn't prevented, but it doesn't belong in a house paid for by the taxpayer, nor any other presentation owned by a particular faith. The courts have been very clear on this - recall Moore, for one. BTW, the PEER complaint is of not being able to remove or rebut the creationist material, not about being prevented from presenting it.

You refer to your work as a mediator. That's very nice, but the essence there is that disagreeing parties have agreed to participate in mediation to resolve a dispute. That's not what happened here: one party inappropriately used its administrative powers to place religious doctrine in the public space as scientific fact. In fact, the root cause of the problem is one side of the question asserting it has a right to force others in this dispute, regardless of time, venue, others' intentions, or whether public facilities are used for it.

You say I've expressed the belief that religion "should be taught in public schools". Let me be clear: religion is a legitimate topic for public schools as part of social studies, sociology, philosophy. Never as "this particular religion is true, and its beliefs are God's Will". Frankly, it appears to me that this is what you want public schools to do. That's not acceptable.

I'm taken aback at your notion that "falsifiability is a slippery slope". I can't agree. Falsifiability is the foundation of rational thought, let alone scientific. A framework in which no statement can ever be proven wrong, because no evidence is ever considered adequate for disproof is of no value. Any useful theoretical system must have a way to falsify false statements, and must have predictive capability. Our inability to know all things (which is why science is not "done", and why falsifiability is necessary) does not invalidate this essential property.

[dcmdale]

Falsifiability is the foundation of rational thought, let alone scientific. A framework in which no statement can ever be proven wrong, because no evidence is ever considered adequate for disproof is of no value. Any useful theoretical system must have a way to falsify false statements, and must have predictive capability.

And how would one falsify this statement?

[Bayou Bum]

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

The above "Clergy Letter Project" has been endorsed by over 10,000 clergy and continues to grow. The complete list of clergy members endorsing the above is provided at the following link:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/...laboration.htm

(The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.