I'm no Bush Administration fan. The following story is very easy to believe for BA opponents - at first. But don't let hysterical journalism overcome your common sense, or your own ability to check facts. Perpetuating urban myths, even when they make good drama isn't the smart way to fight those who would argue that Yellowstone's geysers are Satan's own nostrils*. Or that the Grand Canyon was created by the flood popularized by the Noah's Ark story from the Bible.
From 12/30/06 from the Huffington Post
Due to pressure from Bush Administration officials, the National Park Service is not permitted to give an official age for the Grand Canyon. Additionally, a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood is for sale at the National Park's bookstore.
The sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View was scheduled for review over three years ago, but no such review has been schedule or even requested. The creationist book was the only item approved for sale in 2003 (22 other items were rejected).
From 12/28/06 from the PEER Website
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.'"
Makes a great story, eh whot? Unfortunately...
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. (top of page)
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. (top of page)
From the official Park Service Grand Canyon Website
(Grades 4-6) During this five-hour geology program, students explore fossilized creatures from an environment 270 million years old and unravel the story of how Grand Canyon formed.
Archeological Resources
The oldest human artifacts found are nearly 12,000 years old and date to the Paleo-Indian period. There has been continuous use and occupation of the park since that time. Archeological remains from the following culture groups are found in Grand Canyon National Park: Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Basketmaker, Ancestral Puebloan (Kayenta and Virgin branches), Cohonina, Cerbat, Pai, Zuni, Hopi, Navajo, and Euro-American. The park has recorded over 4,800 archeological resources with an intensive survey of nearly 3% of the park area.
Now, I don't know what any individual park service managers, employees, or so-called "official guides" might have said to others, but there is no refusal to date the geology on the official website. (Veil's "official" status is murky. As near as I can tell, he's an official guide for a private company.) Show me documentation that Park Service "interpreters" are instructed to say anything other than the facts. Shame on Huffington for allowing this "article." It's hysterical journalism at its worst - easy to disprove, and based only on "facts" that are not much more than distortion and have been published for more than 2 years.
Personally, I find this kind of hysterical journalism (and reader reaction) annoying. Given that a BA appointee was fired from NASA not so long ago for actually doing something very similar, unfortunately gives this story far more credence than it's worth.
Should Grand Canyon: A Different View be offered in the museum's gift shop? Sure - why not - right along with Native American creation myths. Just make sure they're marked as such, and we have no problem. Ban it from being sold at all? Absolutely, if it's being touted as the truth, or is being sold in the science section.
Oh, and if you have any proof that the BA actually made or tried to make the Ark story the official version of how the Grand Canyon was created - bring it on. I love a good Mad Hatter war story as much as the next person.
Additional Reading:
Bad Theology & Bad Science
Foolish People
*This analogy was made in one of the articles on the PEER site. I thought it was a fun one.
