Christopher O’Brien over at Northstate Science has the details.
I am shocked, shocked, to hear that there is more to this story, including duplicitous park administration officials, after-the-fact massaging of decisions, and that PEER still hasn’t apologized for being incredibly slimy about this.
Try reading these posts for the background story.
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
|
| Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. | |
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
January 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
“”Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”"
What’s an “evolutionary geologic force”?
Did I miss Darwin’s The Origin of Rocks when I was at the book store last?
January 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Webrunner,
Evolution means “change over time”. You’re thinking of natural selection.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Recently I was in Edinburgh on a tour of the Scottish parliament building located next a rock formation known as Arthur’s Seat. The guide told us that Arthur’s Seat is the remains of a volcano that erupted more than 300 million years ago.
Can’t help being touched that our governments here in Europe acknowledges, without any ifs and buts, that the Earth might be a few years older than 6000.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:12 am
There is more good information over at:
http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com/2007/01/tell-peer-enough-is-enough.html
January 17th, 2007 at 5:18 am
More good info and an apology from Michael Shermer for not fact checking this story before publicizing it here:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html
January 17th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Well, the only thing I could sink my teeth into about this affair was my “anal-girl” complaint about the book being in the Natural History section online, to which I wrote to the GCPA about here and received a reply.
I checked this morning, and the book is no longer in the Natural History section, nor even Human History, etc. It is simply in the All Items section. Good for them! Perhaps now I’ll buy the retro Viewmaster kit and send it to my niece (after looking at it). Viewmasters are so cool.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:02 am
@webrunner: in a word, yes. Darwin’s significant contributions to geology are often overlooked, but he did, among other things, gather significant evidence for the idea that land could consist of risen seabeds, and proposed the now-standard explanation for the formation of coral atolls. He wrote a series of four books on geology, although none called “On the Origin of Rocks by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Strata in the Struggle for Geography.â€
Whether the author of that sentence knew about this is a different question.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:50 am
So it seems that while PEER is an agenda-pushing, “lie for a good cause” activist “watchdog” group, the NPS is still playing loosely with the facts to cover themselves. Nice.
I did see this statement from RangerX:
http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com/2007/01/update-peers-grand-canyon-press-release.html
The irony may be fun, but I don’t agree. Hey Phil, why don’t you sell a few astrology books on your site? Throw in a Hoagland Face or two, and sum it up with Sibrel’s “Moon Truth” etc. You could list it in your “Inspirational” section, where you sell materials that inspired you to take on pseudoscience. And all proceeds would go back to your efforts to fight pseudoscience. Consider the irony!
Doesn’t make much sense, does it, to spread the crap you’re trying to fight? “Hey, they want to buy it, why not make it available?” Isn’t that a bit smarmy?
January 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Hey Irishman, how do you think religion gets started in the first place? As in,” Hey, people are gullible and want to believe in a simple explanation for why they are as they are. So, let’s sell them a bill of goods and make money at it,,,”
That’s cynacism of the first water. I wonder if guilt might cause the progenitors of such crap to TRY to believe in their own pronouncements or if they’re just complete sociopaths?
I can personally attest to the power of the mystical experience(spontaneous, not as it might occur in a lab setting). It’s enough to fry your shoes(and whatever common sense we had to begin with) but the overwhelming desire to communicate that experience can be mitigated( a little) by being suspicious of subjective phenomena. A strong grounding in scientific methodology may be our only life line to the rational.
It has most certainly been mine,,,
I recall the movie A Beautiful Mind, where the mathematician finally realizes his halucinatory little girl always wears the same clothes and never gets any older. That objective observation becomes his life line back to our rational universe.
Question authority. Accept nothing without evidence and you will likely stay on the rational path of understanding this reality. Pronouncements of absolutism are almost certain to be wrong.
,,,and when someone CLAIMS to be god, or buddah,,,,shoot the buzzard. A real god would not want to be worshipped. Hey, when the caliph asked Al Halaj(in 1050 AD or therebouts, as I recall) if it was true he could raise the dead, AL Halaj responded,
” So some say,,,”
Hearsay is easy. Proof is hard. Just ask Randi. No one has yet succeeded in collecting his million dollars.
Gary 7
January 17th, 2007 at 9:57 am
You know, I took advantage of the opportunity to send the email letter to the park service when the link was on this blog. I received an email from Brad Wallis of the Grand Canyon Assn. and he indulged me in an email dialog.
He put the debate into the context of not just science fact vs. religious belief, but censorship. Some would say that it was a false dichotomy, but here is part of one of the emails:
“Conceptually, having any group, be they a government, a social club, or other formal organization have the ability to restrict your options for study and consideration is a very slippery slope. Who then determines what text is acceptable and which are unacceptable? The reality in this situation is that there are at least five major scientific theories on canyon formation that have wide acceptance, there is not one simple scientific answer to this question. Who then decides which of those five theories we are allowed to carry material on and which we are not. If we restrict books to those which only describe scientific based theories, do we then “ban†books we have carried for decades regarding Native American canyon creation myths?
In personal conversations with many of the key players in this discussion, including Jeff Ruch from PEER and Eugiene Scott from the National Science Foundation, the common re-occuring theme is that the public at large is not intelligent enough to weigh out divergent viewpoints to reach their own conclusions. I don’t know about you, but I am not comfortable with that. I believe that given divergent viewpoints, people are capable of learning more about the subject and drawing their own conclusions.
Brad L. Wallis
Executive Director
Grand Canyon Association”
I decided that censorship is worse than variety of literature. I do not claim to know the answers, but I did a little google search on Mr. Wallis, and he’s been writing about this debate for a long time. It’s not a new issue, and it’s probably not going away soon.
I want there to be accurate scientific information to be available about age of the trees in Yosemite and the amount of time it has taken the Colorado river to carve out the Grand Canyon, and what kind of fossils are embedded in those layers. I also think censorship is wrong anywhere anytime. It opens too many doors to really bad policies.
My opinion.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Gary Ansorge Says: “How do you think religion gets started in the first place? As in,†Hey, people are gullible and want to believe in a simple explanation for why they are as they are. So, let’s sell them a bill of goods and make money at it,,,â€
Actually, yes, these days. There’s a quote from L. Ron Hubbard, a second string (or even third string) SciFi writer who supposedly said in 1947, “The only way a science fiction writer is going to get rich is to start a religion.” (I only say “supposedly” because I haven’t independently verified the quote.)
Now we have all sorts of media loonytoons (apologies to Chuck Jones) espousing Scientology.
- Jack
January 17th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Wendy -
“Who then determines what text is acceptable and which are unacceptable?”
Scientific peer review and repeatable experimental results or accurate predictions of data to be accumulated is a great place to start.
And, in other news -
CENSORSHIP??? Seriously, Wendy?
That claim is bald-faced creationist blather. They aren’t being censored! They are being denied (or should be) equal footing with the other geology info books at a national park funded and supported by the federal government – an entity that is supposed to be secular and reality-based.
Young Earth Creationism is not now, nor will ever be, a “major scientific theory”. Creationism is dogma, not science.
“If we restrict books to those which only describe scientific based theories, do we then “ban†books we have carried for decades regarding Native American canyon creation myths?”
That’s a stupid, strawman question that answers itself. The issue isn’t restricting books that only describe scientific-based theories.
If the books on Native American canyon creation MYTHS(!!!) were to be rewritten in a way that taught those same creation myths as “major scientific theories” about the Grand Canyon… then YES – the Park should no longer sell them.
Because the book would be a clear promotion of falsehood whose lies would be supported by our Federal Government and Park system because of the direct association with a national park.
HOW DOES ANYONE NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
“Conceptually, having any group, be they a government, a social club, or other formal organization have the ability to restrict your options for study and consideration is a very slippery slope.”
Ugh. Yeah – the federal government is just like a social club! That makes sense.
And where is the park “restricting” anyone’s options? If the park stopped selling the book, would it also suddenly become unavailable for purchase ANYWHERE?
And what about standards for public education? Clearly there is rampant censorship!
“I want my children to be taught that if a person tries to photograph them, that person is trying to STEAL THEIR SOUL!! Why is the public school system restricting the students’ options for study of “Soul Stealing via Photography”?
HMMMM?????
Jeebus Crust on a cracker, people – these “arguments” exist on such a simplistic level of rational thinking and reasoned debate you’d think the obvious errors would be… well, obvious.
But, then, we’re talking about creationists. Worse, Young Earth Creationists.
I have to go read some other BA post forums to reaffirm my belief in basic human intelligence.
January 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
eSkeptic has replied to the PEER article here http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-01-17.html
January 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Speaking of not resolved, the quoted part of Barna’s statement sounds rather slippery in not disagreeing with the young Earthers:
“The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old”
A range, rather than two maxima, would have been better. Fortunately, the original press release does include explicit reference to “the 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist”. Unfortunately the formatting of the release doesn’t make clear whether this reference is part of the explanation to be offered by guides, or is only part of the release itself. I’m assuming, and hoping, the former. So, good news!
January 18th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Thank you Richard A. Stevens. Michael Shermer’s Grand Canyon/PEER essay about says it all. Fact checking is right up there with How to Be a Skeptic. As I said, Brad Wallis of the Grand Canyon Association has been ON this for quite awhile. The so-called offending volumes are allegedly in a special section in their bookstore not to be confused with geogology texts — and I AM a person with basic human intelligence. I don’t like my chain to be pulled by someone with an agenda without being informed about the nature of that agenda. My interest in science is as strong as my interest in free speech.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Gary G, I read that statement as an aknowledgment of the age of the canyon. Talking about the basin developing over 40 million years pretty much kicks the YECs right there. It has also become more clear that the guides do use the ages of the rock beds and such in their descriptions.
Gary Ansorge, I meant my remark specifically within the context of justification for the NPS to offer materials via the GCA run bookstores. I’m well aware other people use that justification.
Wendy, the idea of censorship is misplaced. They’re not denying that the book can be published or sold anywhere, they are monitoring the quality and content of what is presented as scientific descriptions and sold through their auspices. I see some justification for inclusion in the “Spiritual/Inspirational” section alongside books discussing Hopi myths. However, I would like more comparison between the tones of the books. Does the Hopi book purport to be scientifically valid? Is it a sociological look at the myths of the people or a presentation of them as “alternate explanations”? The tone and description of the Creationist book presents itself as a scientifically valid alternate explanation, which it clearly is not. That is why I question even it’s placement in the “Inspirational” section. A book of pictures with bible quotes wouldn’t be that bad, but I don’t think this is what the book entails.
As I said before (predating Phil’s post), I think a disclaimer sticker might be in order.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Irishman, legally they can sell the book. The question is why did they approve it. I think because of Vail’s connections and the idea that it would sell. Money bottom line.
Anyway, you can look at the list of contributors’ essays to the book at Amazon. Some of the negative reviewers don’t have their facts straight, but you can read the reviews by people who like the book to get an idea about how the book is presented. The people to “go after” are the people on that essay contributor list…the Ken Hams, et al. who give people that comfy feeling that it’s OK to live in one’s delusional bubble.
January 19th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Melusine, I looked at the amazon reviews, and they confirm my understanding that the Grand Canyon: A Different View is presented as science.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Right, Irishman, and we knew that. However, it’s not illegal for them to be selling it. I agree it’s not quite the same thing as talking about past Indian tribal myths – the contributors are alive and well today espousing these Creationist views, just as the author, Tom Vail, leads Creationist tours for $2,000 plus, and he has the right to. My thing is, that although I do not like it, this isn’t a BIG deal. If I had been in the meeting when they were deciding to purchase the book for sale, I would have spoken my mind. I don’t what their reasoning was for including the book, but that Tom Vail gives tours around the Canyon, I tend to think he (and other groups supporting him) may have pushed it. I don’t know for sure. I could write Mr. Wallis again…
“Illegal” and having some spine are two different things. The Grand Canyon Association is well aware of scientists’ and non-scientists’ thoughts on this book. They are not relenting from selling it, however. Why? Maybe they don’t think it’s the big of a deal, maybe it sells well, maybe they don’t want to be bullied into not selling it as this point. It’s not clear why the book was approved to begin with. But the real problem is that list of contributors…
January 20th, 2007 at 11:09 am
“I am shocked, SHOCKED… well not that shocked.”
Another piece of timeless wisdom from Futurama.
January 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
“Talking about the basin developing over 40 million years pretty much kicks the YECs right there.” Right, Irishman, except this is not what the statement says. It says it developed “in” the last 40 million years, which agrees with the YECs.
As I said, that’s just from the quoted bits. There’s another statement in the release, I think intended to reflect the official line for interpretive talks, which does go against YECs properly. So, this is just a minor quibble.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I met up with Dr. Shermer at TAM5 to point out that a friend has a pen she bought at the Grand Canyon several months back. Her note to me:
Remember, we were discussing how the folks at the Grand Canyon can’t talk about the true age of the canyon for fear of offending creationists?
‘Well, I was at home using a pen I bought last year at the Grand Canyon, and I never really noticed the writing on the side: “From Navajo Point, the massive and powerful Colorado River appears to be a mere trickle of water. However, 5,000 feet below the river continues to scour, carve and shape the canyon walls as it has done for thousands of years.”
‘ “Thousands?” ‘
Maybe that controversy isn’t over yet.
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:31 am
Hmmm, is it possible to mis-place the decimal point in the word ‘millions’, and have it come out ‘thousands’?
I guess it is not a good explanation, but I’m trying to be kind.
Ivan.