Comments on: Grand Canyon issue resolved… but not really

By: icemith

icemith — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:31:38 +0000

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.

By: Greg H.

Greg H. — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:55:38 +0000

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.

By: Gary G

Gary G — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:59:40 +0000

“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.

By: Matt Ray

Matt Ray — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:09:57 +0000

“I am shocked, SHOCKED… well not that shocked.”

Another piece of timeless wisdom from Futurama.

By: Melusine

Melusine — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:15:19 +0000

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…

By: Irishman

Irishman — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:48:57 +0000

Melusine, I looked at the amazon reviews, and they confirm my understanding that the Grand Canyon: A Different View is presented as science.

By: Melusine

Melusine — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:19:25 +0000

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.