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.