At Brazos Bend State Park, in the heavily travelled areas there are nice wood signs showing all the different kinds of birds and alligators you see – stuff like that is OK. It’s very helpful – it’s about the park. Maps are a good idea too. The occasional bench with the donator’s name on it is OK, I suppose.

It’s not the legality of the issue that bothers me so much, it’s the integrity of it all. It’s sort of like the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, which was not written that way (and was revised twice thus). It was written for all, and the parks are for all, and I get tired of people who feel it’s necessary to parade their religion around by usurping everything (our currency, etc.) It’s like you are walking around amidst the wilderness and someone is reminding you of what to think. Just be there! Let the canyon talk to you.

They bother me a little, too, but there is some wiggle room that has not been fully explained that would justify the existence of the plaques – at least the legality of them.

Specifically, were the plaques actually displayed and maintained by the park service? Or were they donated and displayed by the private religious group? What approval did the NPS have in the initial installation of the plaques?

I don’t think the NPS should be in the religion business, and I don’t think it appropriate for the Park to be displaying private religious plaques. If they do, they should display equally any private plaques by any religious group. Let’s test this and get a Wiccan plaque, a FSM Plaque, and an Ethical Culture Society plaque made up and try to get them displayed.

Devo said:
> Our Sun AIN’T an “average Star”.

It’s not particularly large, nor particularly small, nor particularly massive, nor particularly old, nor particularly young, nor particularly central, nor particularly uniquely placed, nor particularly special in any characteristic to stand out. It is not unique. By that criteria, it is “average”.

Some Guy said:
> And please expand on what you mean when you say scientific THEORIES are debatable.

I would agree that, in principle, theories are debatable. Theories are explanations – they are attempts to tie together the observations and data into a model that is coherent and makes sense. Theories are always subject to reevaluation in light of new evidence. But I agree to concern, because most people who make a statement like that do so with the motivation of calling Evolution “just a theory”, as if it makes it unsupported, unreasonable, and invalid. Scientific theories typically get carefully scrutinized, and last because they match the evidence. Any alternate explanation not only has to match the data at least as well as the current one, but must also find data that disagrees with the current one that the proposed one explains better. Evolution is well-supported and Creationism fails to provide anything new or better.

I note the letter filed by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Tom Vail.
http://www.alliancealert.org/aa2004/2004_01_12.pdf

Notice how they frame each and every argument to the NPS about NPS decisions and NPS responsibility. Nowhere in that letter is any mention that the GCA is private and can therefore sell whatever they wish. That is a red herring. The issue is what the NPS approves for sale in NPS owned stores in NPS parks, that happen to be staffed and run by a service contract.

Again, I think there are solid grounds that the book sale is not unconstitutional, but for very different reasons.

If by placing religious works in these bookstore without government approval violates their contract, then the federal needs to penalize the them including if necessary cancelling the contract. If the feds are telling them to put the book in the store, then that would be a violation of the first amendment

The GCA did not place the books on sale without approval. The record is clear that the approval process was accurately followed by the GCA. There is no violation of their contract. You are also correct that the NPS directing a private entity to sell something would be a violation. Neither of those is the situation at hand.

Melusine said:
> Personally, I would rather the book be sold than play censorship book wars, but they didn’t have to approve selling it either.

Part of what is sorely neglected in every discussion I see is the criteria for evaluation used by the NPS for what can be sold in park stores. If we had the criteria list and the evaluation form all filled out against that list, we could easily see if the claim that it was evaluated neutrally and approved is accurate. Unfortunately, PEER’s FOIA request for the documents about the evaluation were replied to that those documents do not exist. Ergo, there’s no record. I would still like to see the NPS criteria listed, even if there’s no document of how the book measures up.

Specifically, it seems to me some criteria for evaluation include:
* Relevance to the location – the Grand Canyon.
* Marketability – does it sell well, or is it ignored?
* Furthering of NPS goals and aims – promotion of the history and meaning of the location, with emphasis on the well-founded scientific explanations for origins and causes.

There may be other criteria. Now to me, it is obvious that the book meets the first two criteria I listed. The question is how does it fit with item 3? One argument for the book is has emotional and significance worth to a lot of people – the Inspiration. It has cultural heritage, which puts it on equal footing with Native American myths and such. From those criteria, there is a valid argument that the book does fit with the overal goals of the NPS, especially in presenting a balanced view. However, the reservation is that the book presents itself and findings as good, alternative science. And to back that up, some of the authors do have credentials in science fields. However, I don’t think you’re going to find articles with the same themes in the peer-reviewed science literature, and the academic worth of the content of the book is in question. That is the basis for taking issue with the book. It presents itself as valid science when it has not met the scientific review process.

It seems to me that one could legitimately exclude the book on the grounds that it does not meet criteria three. Or it could be included on the grounds that it does meet criteria three, not for scientific accuracy but for alternative views and other forms of meaning. So as I say, there is potential justification for the book to be on sale in the stores.

I just would like to see the official criteria.

Regarding censorship, excluding the book for the evaluation above would not be censorship – Tom Vail has the right to publish and market the book to any venue he wishes. It would be a customer decision, equivalent to any private store evaluating the content on their shelves for marketability and compliance with their aims. Just like a Christian bookstore is not going to market Black Sabbath records (unless they have a section for materials to throw on bonfires?), the NPS could exclude books that don’t meet their aims.

I will use it often. Thanks. (-8~

Edit to add — it’s the curse of the internet. Post about fact-checking and you’ll soon realise you should have checked your facts. Actually I’d mentally conflated the New Scientist article I linked to and the Doonesbury cartoon on the same subject, which I read around the same time. As you’ll have realised, the New Scientist article doesn’t say that the park people are forbidden to say the Canyon is millions of years old.

I’m almost suspicious enough to say that New Scientist changed their article (it seems. . . different from when I glanced at it yesterday), but I don’t have an archived copy to check. The magazine does, however, have a shoddy track record.

As far as I can tell, I was the first one to use the phrase — 8 October 2006 at Cocktail Party Physics.

As Lauren Becker said in her essay, some people who believe in God will outright disbelieve scientific fact when it contradicts either what they read from the bible, or what they were taught in church. As history has shown, some people will go to great lengths to deny, ignore or subdue such facts, or even take hostile actions (i.e. the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, 9/11) because of their interpretation of a religious book.

And please expand on what you mean when you say scientific THEORIES are debatable.

A person’s opinion (one use of the word theory), and a scientific Theory (like general relativity) are two completely different things. That confusion is often used by those of faith who question the validity of scientific facts that disagree with scripture as part of their argument.

The examples of red dwarf stars I mentioned are correctly written :

Barnard’s Star, the second closest star to us. (Or fifth closest counting our Sun & the three stars of Alpha Centauri separately.)

Wolf 359 (as in the ‘Star Trek’ mythology)

Lalande 21184 (right numerals?) the star closest after Wolf 359 which has, or at least was suspected of having, exoplanets orbiting it

.. & well

Proxima Centauri or Alpha Centauri C which may or may not be a very distant part of the Alpha Centauri stellar system orbiting the brighter pair which I spelt right first time.

If you’re wondering the human eye can see – in ideal conditions and at peak -down to about sixth magnitude. Barnard’s Star is a ninth magnitude, M5 V + class star (apparent) and has an absolute magnitude (ie. how bright a star really is if seen from a standard distance of 33 ly) of just 13.3. Proxima Centauri ‘s absolute magnitude is dimmer still at 15.4 and Wolf 359′s the worst yet glowing at only magnitude 16.6 from the standard thirty-three light years distance.

No white dwarf is visible without optical assistence either – the closest examples being Sirius B, or “the Pup”, lost besides its first magnitude partner with only absolute magnitude 10, Procyon B also lost besides its brighter partners glare at just 13.1 absolute magnitude & then the nearest first single white dwarf Van Maanen’s Star which despite being a mere fourteen light years away has an apparent magnitude of 12.4 and, seen from a distance of thirty-three light years where apparent and absolute magnitudes are identical, would rate only 14.2 magnitude.
______________

+ V = Main Sequence class in luminosity type astronomical shorthand. This means its “burning” Hydrogen into helium rather than fusing Helium or other elements as with the giant and supergiant M type stars such as Antares, Betelguese and Arcturus which have other Roman numerals after their spectral types.

Great essay – thanks

Very minor nitpick :

Our Sun AIN’T an “average Star”.

About 75 % of all stars are very dim red dwarf stars far dimmer, cooler and smaller than ours. These are the real “average stars” and despite being the commonest sort you can’t see a single one with unassisted eyesight. (Proxima Centauri, Baranrd’s Star, Wolfd 359 & Lalande 2118 are all amongst our nearest neighbours and most haven’t even heard of them.)

Another 10 % are white dwarfs, burnt out ex-stellar core ‘cinders’. Of the remaining 10 % of stars most are slightly cooler and smaller orange dwarf (K V ie- main-sequence type) stars like Epsilon Eridani and Alpha Centauri B. Then a handful (5 % odd) are other G-type stars -most dimmer than ours, a few brighter. (Sun =G2, G type runs from G0 at the hotter, brighter end down to G9), Then there are the very few F or A type stars over twice as bright as our Sun eg. Sirius, Procyon, Altair, Vega. Finallyless than 1 % are B, O Wolf-Rayet, LBV-Hypergiant, giant, supergiant and the other type sof star. Of course, these stars are visible from a very long way away and so dominate our night sky -although they’re really extremely rare …

But that is just a minor point in context..

Mesuline said, “And though it may not be unconstitutional, it is still contradicting the mission statement of the GCPA.” I feel it is also contradicting the mission statement of the NPS and its general guidelines.

I’m sure he’s already seen it…and buried his head in the sand.*

I’d say the Biblical plaques in the park bother me more than the book in the bookstore. And unlike the anthropological history of past Indian tribes and their myths/customs, the Vail book contains essays that are not of that nature – it does contain bad science. And though it may not be unconstitutional, it is still contradicting the mission statement of the GCPA. If they want to operate like a Barnes & Borders-A-Million, then I’ll buy the books on Amazon.

* I know that ostriches really lay their heads flat on the ground, which makes it look like it’s stuck in the ground from afar.

That’s a nice link.

If you feel like dumbing down, you can to go Tom Vail’s site and see he what he has written about this. To his credit, he presents the criticism of his book. What’s nice about his site, you can read the actual letters he or his lawyers sent to the NPS and the NPS response.

http://www.canyonministries.com/index_files/Controversy.htm

BTW, it has sold about 40,000 copies.

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/badgeology/grandcanyon/controversy.htm

BTW, the book does sell. A pity.

If by placing religious works in these bookstore without government approval violates their contract, then the federal needs to penalize the them including if necessary cancelling the contract. If the feds are telling them to put the book in the store, then that would be a violation of the first amendment

The book sale may not be unconstitutional, but not on the grounds you offer.

The government is not selling this book, a non-profit, non-government organization is. I see no violation of the 1st admendment.

I do see violation of common sense.

Quoth the BA: “it is in violation of the First Amendment”

Eh?

Mind you, from what I have read, this book is junk and for that reason it should not be for sale. Unless you can persuade me otherwise, I think the statement that having it for sale violates the 1st Amendment is wrong. Congress has passed no law that states the Park Service MUST have that book for sale to the exclusion of others or any other such nonsense.

Here’s the thing, though: the creationist has to ignore the fact that the layers of the Grand Canyon cannot have been formed by a flood. The Coconino Sandstone layer alone is proof of that. He has to wave his arms furiously and hope that people don’t look too hard in order to get the global flood explanation to “explain” things at all.

The scientist looks at what’s there and tries to think of how things might have happened to produce what she sees. The creationist knows in advance what he wants to find, and insists in spite of reason and reality that what’s out there is consistent with that expectation.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=68

And this one about theology:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=84

I’m not sure that they’re arriving at different conclusions by following the same path. Lookup “Wilbur Glenn Voliva” if you really want to see how strict adherence to Biblical Literalism can lead to “completely different conclusions” than what others see.

Excerpt from wikipedia: “Voliva was a pioneer in religious radio broadcasting. Listeners to his 100,000-watt (0.1 MW) radio station were treated to thundering denunciations of the evils of evolution and round earth astronomy” – both of which he renounced on Biblical grounds. He had all kinds of “explanations” as to why the scientists were wrong about the sphericalness of the earth, and claimed that the sun was 32 miles in diameter, moved (while the earth stayed stationary), and it was only a few thousands of miles from the earth. Mr. Voliva, a fundamentalist preacher, scorned “so-called fundamentalists who strain out the gnat of evolution and swallow the camel of modern astronomy.” He had thousands of followers. All of this was happening up through the 1930s.