|
America is devolving....
|
View this Thread in Original format
| lex400sc |
| quote: | For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. 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.”
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 |
this is incredible. it's almost 2007 can you believe that? |
|
|
| pmoisse |
lol
unreal. Good for the park to approve the sale of the creationist book though, on the basis of giving people enough credit to form their own beliefs.
It's sad that this concept is still lost on so many :( |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
lol
unreal. Good for the park to approve the sale of the creationist book though, on the basis of giving people enough credit to form their own beliefs.
It's sad that this concept is still lost on so many :( |
Are you being serious? Forming their own beliefs? Even when those beliefs go completely against strong geologic evidence?
I don't give a about anyone's beliefs - you can believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I know. But when a NATIONAL park is not permitted to give an "estimate" of its age as a consequence from pressure from Bush Admin. appointees, this goes beyond the pale of logic.
This is also inexcusable:
| quote: | 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.”
http://www.attytood.com/2006/12/weird_science.html |
Though it's not entirely unexpected considering this Administration's record on science. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
Easy dude, I totally agree that the Administration's stance is completely full of . I don't agree with the topic of the book being the biblical creation of the Grand Canyon.
I was more pointing out the tolerance vs. intolerance aspect of the conflicting "belief's". The science guys are at least open to other thoughts, no matter how wrong they may be (are). The religious guys are totally unaccepting of the science version.
I give people enough credit to form whatever beliefs they want. I could n't give a what most people believe in. Then again, I'm not a religious person in the least. To each their own.
Also, this is funny coming on the heels of a large chunk of the arctic ice shelf breaking free -> link and the proposal of the US Administration to have the polar bear labelled as endangered -> FOX News link |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
Easy dude, I totally agree that the Administration's stance is completely full of . I don't agree with the topic of the book being the biblical creation of the Grand Canyon.
I was more pointing out the tolerance vs. intolerance aspect of the conflicting "belief's". The science guys are at least open to other thoughts, no matter how wrong they may be (are). The religious guys are totally unaccepting of the science version.
I give people enough credit to form whatever beliefs they want. I could n't give a what most people believe in. Then again, I'm not a religious person in the least. To each their own.
Also, this is funny coming on the heels of a large chunk of the arctic ice shelf breaking free -> link and the proposal of the US Administration to have the polar bear labelled as endangered -> FOX News link |
Yet take the Bald Eagle off said list...
does this mean we can continue the cull? :p :toothless |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | | “Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” - Robert A Wilson |
...hope so, theyre damn tasty. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
itd make me laugh if it didnt piss me off so much.
ive always been curious about whether the US' constitution & bill of rights actually achieve anything?! i mean, what exactly is the separation of chuch & state protection doing, if it allows this kind of bull?
im not nationalistic at ALL, but stuff like this makes me proud to be an australian :D |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
itd make me laugh if it didnt piss me off so much.
ive always been curious about whether the US' constitution & bill of rights actually achieve anything?! i mean, what exactly is the separation of chuch & state protection doing, if it allows this kind of bull?
im not nationalistic at ALL, but stuff like this makes me proud to be an australian :D |
The problem is not religion, it is activism.
In most cases, only those who are nearly fanatical believers in something will find enough 'balls' to fight for what they believe in, especially if it runs counter to the general feeling of their compatriots.
Because the 'christian fundamentalist' activist have found an ear with policy makers in recent years. Add to that fact that the majority of the thinking populace is less concerned about activism than going about their daily lives and are disenfranchised with the entire process, you get this kind of policy that defies reason.
This is exacerbated by the continuing consolodation of the information readily available to the populace in the media. Not to say that all the media is being run by government censors, but in general the only information that gets sent to the masses is virtually the same regardless of the "bias" the outlet has. Turn on any news station in the US and you will get the same information, sometimes with a slight bent depending on the outlet. But it is almost like they have agreed to all latch onto one sensational story after another, usually one that is largely irrelevant to the state of the world like will miss USA lose her crown, to keep the masses ignorant. It is that effectively forced ignorance that makes those who would normally make reasoned decisions unable to make any decisions rationally due to a lack of information. I have met many supremely intelligent individuals who were so ignorant of the world that it made me want to vomit. Sometimes their ignorance was by choice, but many times it was created by a lack of will to go beyond the yellow journalism now prevalent in the USA.
MrS |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
lol
unreal. Good for the park to approve the sale of the creationist book though, on the basis of giving people enough credit to form their own beliefs.
It's sad that this concept is still lost on so many :( |
LOL
So you're saying that if we can accurately guesstimate and acquire data on things such as the age of the grand canyon, we shouldn't give that information to people?
Because they might want to... randomly guess the age themselves?
Because if the nutjobs can't gather their own data, we shouldn't introduce data that might injure their cause?
Because.. what?
I'm not following your logic. At all. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not nationalistic at ALL, but stuff like this makes me proud to be an australian :D |
I'd be real wary of that
| quote: | | And documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate the Brethren's efforts over 15 years to bend the Family Court and the Federal Government to its will, in the hope of keeping lapsed Brethren away from their children. |
SMH report on sect involvment in politics #1
SMH report on sect involvment in politics #2
Interesting and a bit of a worry when extremist christians start pressuring federal politicians and institutions down this way in Aust and NZ |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
usually one that is largely irrelevant to the state of the world like will miss USA lose her crown, to keep the masses ignorant.
MrS |
i loled. :haha: |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
LOL
So you're saying that if we can accurately guesstimate and acquire data on things such as the age of the grand canyon, we shouldn't give that information to people?
Because they might want to... randomly guess the age themselves?
Because if the nutjobs can't gather their own data, we shouldn't introduce data that might injure their cause?
Because.. what?
I'm not following your logic. At all. |
I'm sorry, I didn't think it sounded vague. I'm saying that both books (in this case) should be allowed to be sold in the park office, just like the Park Service advocated. If you put the two books on the shelf side by side, I'm going to pick the one based on science, not creationism. I might pick up the creationist one just for a little laugh, but I wouldn't buy it in order to learn from it.
Someone who believes in creationism might do the opposite that I did, and that's their choice to do so. Allowing the sale of the two books is a good thing, no matter how fruity I personally believe creationist theory is, especially in relation to the creation of the Grand Canyon (as in this current example).
In the end though, I do not put any stock in creationist theory, but I'm not going to stop any one from researching it on their own. I do have a problem when it is imposed to be taught in schools. I don't like that one bit, because the little kids being taught that don't have the choice to decide between learning the science or the fruity religious theory (that also cannot be proven). |
|
|
|
|
