I’ve been getting a bit of email about my blog entry about creationism being promulgated at the Grand Canyon.
First, a correction. Sorta.
Reading the original PEER press release, I thought that it said that National Park Service rangers were being forbidden to give the actual age and history of the canyon when asked, so as not to offend religious patrons. Why did I think that? Probably because the PEER press release says:
“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.’”
However, Jeff Hebert asked the PEER folks if this were actually true. They responded:
Jeff–
This option is the closest–
"Are you simply saying that the NPS hasn’t offered an official guideline to its employees as to how they are to answer that question, and not that the official position is to answer “no comment”?"
1. Reports from Grand Canyon NP interpretive staff, some of whom have been seeking clarification from their chain-of-command relative to questions about the validity of “young earth claims.” The more than three-year hold-up in blocking official guidance on this question is part of this concern.
2. Statements by NPS HQ officials that the creationist view should be given equal time in park materials.
3. The reply from the Grand Canyon superintendent’s office to media inquiries on the official park view on the age of the Canyon.
We did not mean to imply that geological information has been deleted from park materials.
I have read over this many times, and no matter what I do, it sounds to me like PEER’s press release was written specifically to make people think that rangers were told to give the answer "no comment". Now, PEER is saying they never said this. This is pure spin at the very, very least.
Here’s the deal. The Grand Canyon visitor’s center is selling a creationist book, which is highly unconstitutional, and there is pressure from White House appointees to not only sell it, but apparently also to bury any reviews of the situation. This Administration promised three years ago to investigate the book being sold, and nothing has been done.
That, to me, is bad enough. There is no need to exaggerate the issue. Yet it looks to me like PEER did just that. They made it sound even worse, and stretched the truth to do so.
PEER needs to make another press release, and it needs to include an apology for their slimy behavior. They have made this situation worse, because now it emotionally weakens the argument for truth. Reality-based people — like me — now have to say we were wrong.
I am saying it now. I was wrong to say that rangers were being gagged. It is my fault for relying on a press release, pure and simple. I’m glad my friend Wes Elsberry was smarter than I was on this.
But PEER needs to admit they screwed up, too.
This still leaves us with the issue of the book, and with that I am certainly not backing down.
You can read far more about this terrible book at the Free Inquiry website. Bob Carroll at the Skeptics Dictionary has something to say about it, as does, again, Wes Elsberry. Creek Running North has a wonderful geological timeline of the Grand Canyon, too, where you get the real picture of what formed the canyon.
Actually, let me say again to read that timeline. The canyon was formed through forces both subtle and gross, land-building events that took millions of years. Countering that are erosive forces that work over those same eons, and sometimes at much faster rates. Primitive life took hold in those rocks billions of years ago, and life both uni- and multicellular still exists there. All of this, and more, is written in the rocks, in fine detail with a rich, lush history.
Yet there are those who would prefer to think the canyon was swept into existence through divine interference, all at once, despite all (and I mean all) the evidence against that.
Think about the oversimplified fantasy of Noah’s flood and then compare that with the complex and subtle nature of the reality of the canyon as Creek Running North described. Creationists love to say that scientists lack the appreciation of beauty and have no sense of awe, but you tell me: whose canyon story is more beautiful, whose is more interesting, whose is more awe-inspiring, and has more detail, evidence, and self-consistency?
Creationists deny all this because they have to. If they accepted it, they’d realize they’re wrong, and they cannot accept that. They claim their rock-solid faith makes them strong, but in reality it makes them weak, brittle. They cannot learn, they can only deny, deny, deny.
And this is what we want to teach people when they visit the grandest canyon on Earth?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Thanks for the honest update, Phil. It would have been easy to just sweep it under the carpet.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Kudos to you on admitting your error – and further kudos for keeping up the fight against myth being presented as fact!
The Grand Canyon will always be a major front in the creationist/young earth versus reality battle as it so readily demonstrates the gross erors of the young earth “theory” – I put theory in quotes because it doesn’t really deserve that title. It is myth pure and simple… and were the book in question placed in the “Mythe/Folklore” section on the bookshelf I would have no issues with it…sadly it is not in that section.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Phil, it’s good that you recognize that. Intellectual honesty, yay! Both Christian Burnham and Chuck disbelieved the tourguide part, and I read elsewhere from people who have been there recently that no such thing occurred in their experience.
However, my “anal-girl” complaint email about their putting the book in the Natural History section on the online bookstore was misunderstood. I should have posted the link to the online store – the book is in the Natural History section there. I have no idea of where it is in the store, but that’s what Mr. Wallis replied to. Am I allowed to post the email since it’s from a public source? If not, please edit accordingly. I am pleased that I got a reply and I am glad it’s not in the Natural History section in the physical store at the park:
Now, just one click, copy and paste will do the trick online.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Thanks Melusine,
Yes, I do have special powers in case you’re wondering.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I finally got permission from the NPS to post their press release on the matter, which I’ve put up at http://nerdcountry.blogspot.com/2007/01/canyon-finale.html if anyone wants to read it.
Thanks for following up on this Phil. I wish I hadn’t gotten suckered by PEER’s press release, and I agree they should issue a retraction if they haven’t already done so. They’ve done a real disservice to those who are trying to support good science education with this thing; the next time a REAL issue comes up it’s going to be that much harder to convince people to listen.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Melusine,
Thanks for the update – I am heartened to hear that the book resides in a more sutiable place in their bookstores although I’d still like to see it in “Mythology” as opposed to “Inspirationonal” … I guess there’s just no satisfying me!
January 5th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I am totally opposed to banning books (Fahrenheit 451 in 2007). Shame on you for even suggesting it. We don’t need to fear books. We really don’t want to go down that path, do we?
January 5th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Larry, I’m sorry, did Phil say anything about banning any books in the above post?
It looks to me like he’s saying that a book about creationism is inappropriate and unconstitutional to sell at the Grand Canyon visitor’s center, which is 100% correct.
That’s an endorsement of banning it?
January 5th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Uh, no-one’s banning books. It’s just a matter of keeping religious propaganda out of government agencies.
And, why would we need a new version of Fahrenheit 451, when the original was a masterpiece?
January 5th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I plan on emailing Mr. Wallis again just to clarify that I was specifically speaking of the online site and that I’m glad to hear it’s in the “Inspirational” section of the actual store, thank you, etc. However, I’m also curious about the claims regarding this approval/review process regarding this book. It appears to be one more outstanding item in question that needs clarification.
Funny, I reread Fahrenheit 451 this year – bought a new edition and I must say Ray Bradbury is a more interesting writer than I remember. I don’t like banning books either, and I don’t think this one book is that big of deal as long as it’s not promoted along with the science books (really, I’d prefer it collect dust). If there are books of Indian legends (which there are online, then this book can be considered that way, in all fairness).
Back to my comments in Phil’s first thread: the Discovery Institute advertises these excursions that the author Tom Vail leads – these Creationist tours. I’m not interested in stopping anyone from paying $2000 + to go on these tours, nor them leading these private tours, but I do have the right to say that people paying this money for these excursions are being taken. They may not think so, but I think so. Because…
They are denying the progress of mankind, or human beings, if one prefers. What is “inspirational” about living in a sort of time warp? What does it say about someone who wants to deny the collective progress of our social evolution and advances in acquiring knowledge? It’s mindboggling to me. I think for some people they simply don’t care whether the earth is 4.6 billion years old, 2 million, or 50,000 – it doesn’t have any effect on their lives, really. Big deal if they’re wrong – they just don’t care….truth is inconvenient….they don’t care about geology… Yet, do they trust medical doctors to carve open their bodies and replace their hearts, stick needles and things in us, prescribe medicine? If a geologist has studied rocks and sediment layers for 30 years, plate tectonics and all, somehow that’s up for a lot more debate? How many people put their trust in medical doctors? They make mistakes too.
Fear of death is a great motivator! Forget the process of science is the same whether we’re talking hearts, medicine, or the life and death of a tsetse fly. I just find it disturbing that people want to BELIEVE so badly, and thus deny our human beingness. If the Creationist tour promoters sincerely believe their spiel, so be it, but I think they are living in a deluded time warp.
I find it inspirational that collectively we have not been shackled by ignorance. And the Grand Canyon from a plane is so awesome.
(rant mode off)
January 5th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
OK, some will argue that “belief” is as much a part of our “human beingness” as other characteristics of human nature, but I’m talking about the progression of science, knowledge, technology from a collective standpoint – we have progressed. Some people just want to stay stuck in the past.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Yes, it is good that you brought this up. I am a stickler for getting things right and have been called all kinds of nasty names on other blogs when I point out factual errors in the arguments of people who, in the end, I really agree with. I want my side to look good and come from a position of strength. This is not achieved by distorting the facts.
Rob
January 5th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Phil,
My hat is off to you, sir! It takes great strength of character to publicly admit when you’ve been wrong. My admiration for you (which was already pretty high) has gone WAY up.
As is often the case with groups like PEER, the zeal for the cause can easily blind them to the need for “truth in advertising.”
“Hey! No one will read our press release unless we juice it up a bit.”
Their desire to raise a quite valid alarm about this stupid book has led them into the trap of sensationalism. And now they’re stuck with either having to pretend that they never said what they clearly DID say, or they have to apologize for being dishonest. Either way, they run the real risk of having their message get lost in the aftermath. I think a lot of people forget that the same internet that allows charlatans like Pat Robertson to be shown for the deluded fools that they are, also can be used to trip up dishonesty on the side of the “good guys.”
Let the facts speak for themselves. They’re usually scary enough!
January 5th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Was the blue bg on this page always this dark? I have trouble reading the posts unless my laptop screen is exactly at the right angle.
January 6th, 2007 at 2:03 am
It is absolutely FALSE that it is unconstitutional for the book to be sold. The book is NOT sold by Grand Canyon National Park; it is sold by the Grand Canyon Association, a PRIVATE, non-profit association. It’s also in the inspiration section with the other myths. Please check my blog for more reasons why the book should be allowed to be sold. And check National Parks Traveler for an indepth analysis about the legality of selling the book. I’m a scientist and former national park ranger, but I don’t believe burning books is the way to go here.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Try dragging the curser (with button depressed) across the text, highlighting it as white print on a light blue background.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:02 am
“Actually, let me say again to read that timeline. The canyon was formed through forces both subtle and gross, land-building events that took millions of years. Countering that are erosive forces that work over those same eons, and sometimes at much faster rates. Primitive life took hold in those rocks billions of years ago, and life both uni- and multicellular still exists there. All of this, and more, is written in the rocks, in fine detail with a rich, lush history. ”
The question as to the age of the Grand Canyon must have a least two answers, depending on whether you’re talking about the age of the rocks in which the canyon is cut, or the age of the hole itself (which is of course what the canyon is). The age of the various strata must be in the range of billions of years for the oldest strata (at and below the bottom of the canyon), to mere single years for the soil at the top of the canyon. The age of the canyon is ambiguous as it is an ongoing process of erosion; however, the process must have started after the laying down of the last (highest) substantial rock strata, otherwise is wouldn’t be able to cut down through that (and lower) strata.
Phil, in reply, I think you need to be a lot clearer in your explanation. You need to differentiate between the formation of the rock strata in which the canyon formed and the formation of the canyon itself. The formation of the rock strata must have completed before the beginning of the cutting of the canyon i.e. the canyon is cutting down through existing solid rock. If the formation of the canyon proceeded at the same time as the laying down of those strata, then the canyon would be a competely different shape to the existing one.
Also, I’m not sure what you are saying about the ‘primitive life’ in the rocks. Are you referring to the life that existed in the sands, sediments, oceans and lagoons etc which later went on to become fossilised in those rocks (during the formation of those rocks), or are you referring to current life which has now invaded the inside and outside of those rocks and is still living there.
January 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
P Coil,
Click the link! Read the timeline! Or did you happen upon a hard copy of Phil’s post?
It’s called “hypertext.” What will these kids think of next?
January 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Selling the book at the visitors’ centre is a travesty and they should remove it from shelves, but it’s not unconstitutional, highly or otherwise. It violates nothing in the Constitution and neither does it violate the Establishment Clause of Amendment I. It doesn’t establish anything. They’re selling a book. As you pointed out, Phil, there’s no need to overstate the situation. Throwing the term unconstitutional around merely serves to dilute actual instances of unconstitutionality, which as we can see makes most of the population deaf to real instances.
They also sell books on local Native American mythology. I countenance those because they are of anthropological interest to the area and thus satisfy a scientific aspect of the Grand Canyon.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
[quote]“Creationists deny all this because they have to. If they accepted it, they’d realize they’re wrong, and they cannot accept that. They claim their rock-solid faith makes them strong, but in reality it makes them weak, brittle. They cannot learn, they can only deny, deny, deny.
And this is what we want to teach people when they visit the grandest canyon on Earth?”[/quote]
Aren’t you making a rather rash generalization? Not all people who believe in creation believe that the earth was created a mere 5,000 years ago.
I, for one, DO believe that geologic science is correct and earth IS billions of years old.
Nor do I believe that I am contradicting my faith by saying so; the Bible says the earth was created, it doesn’t say when, nor does it say how.
Furthermore, I think that the idea that the earth is only 5,000 years old is just another throwback from the days when the church said the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. The Bible says neither of those things either.
So as I said, accepting geologic science as fact is by no means a contradiction of faith and I don’t understand why some people view it as such.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
The New York Times, 1-5-07,Page 14 (print edition)
“PARKS AGENCY LEAVES CONTROVERSIAL BOOK ON SHELF
Excerpt begins -
‘In the end, no formal action was taken (after discussion), and the book remains on sale because Mr. (David) Barna (a spokesman for the agency) said in a written statement.” It is not our role to tell peole what to believe.” ”
End excerpt. Parentheses are mine.
I don’t read the on-line edition, so I can’t say if this is contained therein. Please read the full article; I just quoted that paragraph for the impact.
We get the government that we deserve, so next time -
Throw The Rascals Out!
January 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
I use Firefox to do 99.9% of my web surfing. And just in the last day or so the page layout here has changed such that the white background no longer goes all the way to the bottom of a screen. So half the posts end up with black text on a dark blue background – pretty much unreadable. I opened the same page in IE and it looks the way it should.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I case can be made (spuriously in my opinion) that ‘intelligent design’ is science, but I can’t see that the ‘young earth’ consept can be anything but religious
January 6th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Mr. B: the term creationists is usually used in these discussions in a more restricted meaning than just a belief that a creator was involved in the coming into existance of Earth and Man.
Lyle: ‘Intelligent Design’ was legally proved to be nothing more than just a rehashed version of creationism in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Evidence was shown that a creationist book was turned into an intelligent design supporting book by simple search and replace of creation with intelligent design. See http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html for the court transcripts and decision.
PS: agreed on the dark blue background, using Mozilla browser.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
I’m not sure about one thing, is it really unconstitutional to sell a creationist (and therefore religious) book in a NPS bookshop? I don’t think selling the book is necessarily an endorsement of a particular religion in particular because the book is being sold and not given away or enthusiastically being pushed. If there were a lot of young earth creationists taking tours why not part the fools from their money?
Stifling rangers from giving the true age of the canyon that on the other hand does seem to cross the line.
January 6th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
You’re absolutely right that that book shouldn’t be offered. Of course, then, neither should this:
http://www.grandcanyonassociation.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=GCA&Product_Code=M20120&Category_Code=NATIVE
I mean, religious views! Pfaugh!
January 6th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Stark said:
and were the book in question placed in the “Mythe/Folklore†section on the bookshelf I would have no issues with it…sadly it is not in that section.
________________________________________________________________
Well….
I take it upon myself as a form of civil action to remedy this problem by doing what any free-thinking bookstore employee would (read:should) do.
I move the books.
Not always all of them, sometimes one, sometimes many…depends on the mood I am in at the moment I find the ‘book’ (and perhaps how many there arctually are…some smaller towns can be be less than equitable with their bible to ‘other books’ ratio). I take exception to the fact that it is in the non-fiction section and I do my part.
They actually fit in quite nicely between the rest of their brotherly fiction nevels.
I also find the nerve to place copies of the Blind Watchmaker or The God Delusion in the theism section…this one is more for public education than civil action, but it brings a slight grin to my face.
Now, next I will try to work on the placement of ‘god’ in the CDN national anthem…..that may take more than simple book switching!!
January 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
…oops.
brotherly fiction NOVELS. Not nevels.
January 7th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
The BA asked :
“Think about the oversimplified fantasy of Noah’s flood and then compare that with the complex and subtle nature of the reality of the canyon as Creek Running North described. Creationists love to say that scientists lack the appreciation of beauty and have no sense of awe, but you tell me: whose canyon story is more beautiful, whose is more interesting, whose is more awe-inspiring, and has more detail, evidence, and self-consistency?”
Well its a rhetorical question, I guess, but since you asked – the answer is the scientists version by light years with tehcreationists fable justsounding like anthropcentric, illogical garbage. A loving God decides thatpeople have been abitnaughty and thus mustall be exterminated Dalek-like insome mega-mega-mega flood … ? Give us a break, Religious fascists, give us a break ..
The BA continues with :
“Creationists deny all this because they have to. If they accepted it, they’d realize they’re wrong, and they cannot accept that. They claim their rock-solid faith makes them strong, but in reality it makes them weak, brittle. They cannot learn, they can only deny, deny, deny. And this is what we want to teach people when they visit the grandest canyon on Earth?”
Hell no & Amen to that!
& for the literal minded, yes that _is_ irony.
Definition of a religious fundamentalist – someone who hears the parable of the (Good) Samaritan and then tries to find outr the Samaritans name while passing by all the other injured people on the road ..
Peopellike the creationists doadiservice tobothScienceand religionas the really smart people (Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and others) have pointed out numerous times.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Lyle Gaulding Says:
I case can be made (spuriously in my opinion) that ‘intelligent design’ is science, but I can’t see that the ‘young earth’ consept can be anything but religious
This was addressed but allow me to add my version. Intelligent Design is not science. Tell me is corn intelligently designed from materials people found in nature? If so how does corn differ from a designed cotton blouse?
The point is the conclusion of who designed life or how life was designed, be it from natural forces or unnatural forces, is the conclusion. Science doesn’t draw the conclusion, it provides the supporting evidence.
see part 2 below
January 8th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Given the above then, the scientific process determines the evidence for or against natural processes as the mechanism which resulted in the living organisms we see today. In that case, the evidence overwhelmingly supports natural selection processes.
see part 3 below
January 8th, 2007 at 1:52 am
The case against natural selection was based on the claim there was evidence for irreducible complexity.
see part 4 below
January 8th, 2007 at 1:53 am
The evidence from genetic science is overwhelmingly against the case for irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity has essentially been ruled out.
So the evidence for intelligent design and for a 6,000 year old Earth are equally found only in religion and neither is supported by scientific evidence.
Sorry for the split post – posting 404 error forced me once again to split up a post.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:01 am
I find it an interesting observation that despite the original charge of ‘too much Evangelical influence in the Nat’l Park’ being dismissed as a false charge that follow up posts are still commenting as if the original charge still stood.
Also, why do you think,”The God Delusion” belongs in the religion section, Monkey? It belongs in the Philosophy section or the Science section. It might be of interest to those perusing religious books but it isn’t a religious book. Maybe you should read it.
(That statement just gave me a deja vu flash.)
January 8th, 2007 at 8:31 am
skeptigirl
Says:
Also, why do you think,â€The God Delusion†belongs in the religion section, Monkey? It belongs in the Philosophy section or the Science section. It might be of interest to those perusing religious books but it isn’t a religious book. Maybe you should read it.
_______________________________________________________________
After reading my own post I realized that it may have been interpreted incorrectly. I, in my own admission of guilt, should have made amends with that.
First, I have read, and push others to read, TGD by Dawkins. An absolutely fabulous piece of work
Second, I am NOT suggesting that it BELONGS in the religion section. Rather, I believe that if it appears there and some young or new person to religion comes across it and thinks that it is a religious text then they may read it and learn something. Or, at least, get a pespective other than that of their religious upbringing.
In my discussions (myriad discussions from the backwaters of Taiwan where missionaries try to “correct the ways of the misguided people of this country” to ‘anywhere’ canada – imainge me standing face to face with a priest in 35 c weather in humid tropical Taiwanese mountains arguing religion and trying to convinvce him that he is single handedly trying to force unwanted change based on unethical premises on people in need of nothing of the sort) I have always come across a lineage of similar pionts to discuss. They (im going to go out on a limb and say that most of my confrontations are with christians) always have the same erroneous points to make, and always have the same cyclic conversations. I would hope that some would read this text (The GD) and possibly learn.
So, I hope that if I can put one copy of TGD on the religion shelf, then perhaps one child may be saved from a life of blind faith. Or, at least, have the chance to see the other side. I know it is a small detail and a trivial action, but the meaning is there. Please do not misconstrue my intentions as ‘believing’ that it honestly belongs there, just that it can do a service if it is read by someone who frequents that section.
I know they would never search it out in the sacraligious science or nature section – what would god think?
Take care,
January 8th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Larry Moran said:
> I am totally opposed to banning books….
I’ve got an alternate solution – they keep selling the book, but put a disclaimer on the cover: “This book is a complete load of hooey and is totally contrary to all the evidence of science about the history and formation of the Grand Canyon. You are welcome to take any inspiration you can glean from lies.”
Of course I’m sure that would tweak a few people as well.
Melusine said:
> Funny, I reread Fahrenheit 451 this year – bought a new edition and I must say Ray Bradbury is a more interesting writer than I remember.
Actually, I reread Fahrenheit 451 last year, and also read Something Wicked This Way Comes, and I’m not that impressed with Bradbury. F451 had an interesting theme but I thought it was clunky and hard to connect to.
Ranger X said:
> It is absolutely FALSE that it is unconstitutional for the book to be sold. The book is NOT sold by Grand Canyon National Park; it is sold by the Grand Canyon Association, a PRIVATE, non-profit association.
That’s a red herring. The bookstore is in the GCNP visitors center and is under the official control of the NPS. The GCA is a non-profit group that runs the bookstore for the NPS (along with doing several other things), but that does not make the bookstore an independent venture. As that National Parks Traveler link discusses, the GCNP director has ultimate authority over and responsibility for everything sold in the bookstore. That is why the NPS gets to approve or deny all book offerings. The fact is the book is on sale by approval of the NPS. If the NPS did not approve, it would be rejected, just like the other 22 books and products considered the same year. It may be arguable that the sale of the book is not unconstitutional, but not on the grounds you provide.
I also experienced problems loading the site with Netscape 8.1. The white center boarder and right menu took extra time to complete loading.
I note that in IE, often the “right” menubar is actually below the “Leave a Reply” box. Phil, I think there’s something in your coding that’s wonky.
January 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
With all due respect, Christian beliefs are just as anthropologically relevant to discussions of the formation of the Grand Canyon as are native American beliefs. The only difference being that Christianity is but one belief among many…so one book among many that discuss native American beliefs is harldy a blasphemy. Many folks are ignorant that the history of Europeans in the area goes back as far as the Navajo. Both groups arrived in the area within decades of each other. (Despite the efforts of politically-correct historians to erase this fact and establish all native Americans as noble and good.) If Navajo religion is relevant to the Grand Canyon, then so is Christian.
I realize many folks here don’t want to admit it, but the vast majority of people in this country believe in God (and many of those believe in creation). Why is it so blasphemous to sell a single book which appeals to them? This effort to ban (yes, BAN…don’t try to weasel out of what people are really pushing for) any book dealing with Christianity from a government-run bookstore is hypocritical. I’m as athiestic as they come but being exposed to the beliefs of others does not get my undies in a wad. Too many folks are far too uptight these days.
If people did not buy the book, then it would not make a profit and the NPS would stop selling it. Apparently, there is a market for it. Live and let live, folks.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Eric,
With likewise respect, the issue here is not about bashing Christianity, nor banning books. It is about the current administration suppressing science in the name of religion. While the orders may or may not come from Bush himself, they are certainly coming from his appointees.
Did you not read the original post by Phil?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/29/bush-white-house-still-promoting-creationism/
Or this one:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/14/ongoing-science-suppression/
Or these:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/11/27/chilly-climate-part-i/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/11/01/white-house-tampering-of-science-part/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/06/11/nasa-admits-deutsch-muzzled-scientist/
Phil is not suggesting that any book be stopped from printing or selling, and neither are the people posting here. What we are suggesting is that the United States government cease any and all suppression of scientific fact. Period. No matter if the data collected conflicts with current popular belief, goes against the current political party in power’s viewpoint, or even if it contradicts one or all religious beliefs. ESPECIALLY if it contradicts a religious belief.
Religion has its place in society. It is an important part of many people’s lives. However, our constitution was written to prevent the forced adherence of any religion upon the people by the government, and that is exactly what these examples represent.
Imagine the uproar if Congress passed a law that said every Presbyterian church was required to sing Phil’s Apollo Moon Hoax as a hymn on Sundays. It sounds ridiculous, but so does “add the word ‘Theory’ wherever the Big bang is mentioned” or “the Grand Canyon was formed during Noah’s flood.”
- G
January 9th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I think it has been said perectly that it should be sold with a disclaimer or some sort – if people realize that the bible is simply fiction, and that a biblical version of geological entities is also fictional, it would do a great service to the intellect of the world. And there is a relevant difference between native mythologies and ‘religions’ and christianity. I wont go into it for you, you can figure that out yourself. The point is that many serious and intelligent people have spent many people hours (many meaning too many to count) trying to sleuth out the history of this planet and when we (’we’ symbolically) understand something and then try to educate people about it it should not be diluted with fables and mysticism. I am NOT for banning books, but ratehr thier proper placement so that when people see them in their respective sections they realize right away that book “a” is a fiction novel, and book “b” is a science text or an ‘as we now undestand it based on science’ text.
And I find it curiously furiating that someone promotng christianity also poses a “live and let live, folks” end to a post. Seems incongruent with the history of religion, no?
January 9th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Oh please, referring to it as native “mythology” doesn’t make it any different from a “religion.” Nice try. And if you need a label to realize this book is about religious theories, well, with all due respect, just how dumb can you be? Do you not read the book jacket before buying the book?
BTW, I’m not promoting Christianity. I’m an athiest. My point was that native American mythology is no different from religion. Why are you so upset that one book that deals with Christian “mythology” is available for people to buy. It smacks of intolerance to me. Yeah, live and let live. Deal with irony of that statement. You think humans needed religion as an excuse to kill each other? We’d have found a way either way.
To close, I dare you to go tell a Navajo, Hopi, or Paiute that their beliefs are nothing but myths and legends. I’m guessing most would have a rather vocal response for you.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Eric, you’re still missing the point. The government is not trying to impose Navajo or Hopi beliefs onto its citizens, nor repressing scientific fact because of a native american custom, but there would (and should) be an uproar if it did.
Let me rephrase what you obviously missed before: Nobody is upset that a Christian book is for sale. People here are upset that a Christian book is being used to subvert scientific knowledge in a government controlled agency. I would have no problem with a PRIVATELY OWNED bookstore opening up right next to the National Park store, and selling whatever they want. They could sell a book that says the grand canyon was created in 7 days, or that it was channeled out by Martians.
Please understand, I am not attacking you personally. Just like you, I am simply voicing my opinion, and I am trying to do it without getting too emotional or calling people names.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
You all need to research this topic a little bit better. The bookstore in question in not run by the NPS. The book store is part of a non-government, non-profit organization. In other words, it is not part of the US government. On the other hand, the bookstore is on government property so it must adhere to some standards and you can find them in the guidelines found here,
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=442&projectId=13746&documentID=15714
In chapter 10, which deals which concessions, there is no mention that a religious work can or cannot be sold, only that items for sale must be preapproved by the National Park Service. It does state that they want products “that interpet and foster awareness, understanding and appreciation of the park and its resources.” Those words are of course open to interpetation as well.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I stand corrected… sort of. The concession vendor is under contract to the National Park Service, and The National Park Service is part of the US Department of the Interior.
If that means that the rules of Amendment I if the Bill of Rights do not apply to vendors or contractors of the United States of America, then I stand corrected.
I guess this is all water over the bridge (or through the canyon) so to speak.
January 10th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
jrkeller, I already addressed that red herring. The bookstore is operated under contract for the NPS. NPS has full authorization and approval over all content of the bookstore. Having a contract company pay the checks does not separate the bookstore from being under the authority and control of the Department of the Interior through the NPS.
To me there are two issues with the book being for sale:
1. Giving the book the imprimateur of being scientifically accurate or an equally valid scientific interpretation.
2. Giving the book the appearance of Government sanction.
Item 1 can be addressed by the category of the bookstore under which it is sold and maybe disclaimers. If it’s sold in the “Inspirational” section right next the the Hopi Indian religious stories, a book of school children stories on their trip to the Grand Canyon, and an art book describing the pretty colors that can be seen, and maybe even a collection of Ansel Adams’ work, then I lessen resistance to sale for this reason. Lot’s of things can be “Inspirational” without being science. This is somewhat more complicated by virtue of the content of the book itself. It argues that it is science and that it is a more valid interpretation than the standard science answer. That makes it somewhat different in character than art, photos, and children’s vacation reports. The treatment of the Indian stories within that book could make it similar or different – I don’t know. That’s why I suggest disclaimers.
Item 2 is trickier in my mind. I think the problem is confusion over what it means for the NPS to review and approve or reject materials for sale. Some people feel that by virtue of being sold in a Government run store, it is necessarily being advocated by the Government. Some feel that if the Government sells [i]any[/i] religious themed material, it must sell [i]any[/i] religious themed material. It would help if we had a list of the criteria used by the NPS for approval or rejection. I think it possible we could view books on sale not to be [i]advocated[/i] by the Government merely by virtue of being sold. I think it possible that some religious themed materials could be sold without granting appearance of advocacy or declaring [i]all[/i] religious materials as fair game. A fair, neutral government policy would be applying the neutral criteria for any book against religious works equivalently. If they meet the same standard as other works, they are acceptable. So if one criterion is number of sales, another is relation to the Grand Canyon, and a third is scientific or naturalistic connection, then apply that to “Inspirational” books. One could argue that this book and perhaps the Hopi book have issues with the third criterion, but meet the other two. One could argue that the “Inspirational” category is most open to alternate views because it is a subjective category, and meaning is found many ways.
The larger issue that is exemplified by the book approval is the pattern of behavior exhibited by the Federal Government. This pattern of behavior is also being scrutinized for a trend that is counter to the First Amendment. An isolated book choice is one thing, a pattern of pushing Christian themed decisions, viewpoints, and materials is something else. There [i]appears[/i] to be a pattern of the latter – not only within the NPS, but accross the Government under direction of the President via Executive Orders and political appointments. That is ultimately what people are really objecting to here. The book is just one concrete example.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Eric Anderson said:
> And if you need a label to realize this book is about religious theories, well, with all due respect, just how dumb can you be? Do you not read the book jacket before buying the book?
It’s not a question of the book containing religious theories, it is that the book contains religious theories. In other words, the book claims scientific validity and claims that the alternate views are objectively correct. This is why it is opposed. If it were about Jesus coming and blessing the waters of the Colorado, it would be getting less attention because it would clearly be a religious story, not a religious theory.