Re: Fw: From NPS.gov: A question about the natural history of the Grand Canyon.

"Leah_McGinnis@nps.gov" to me
show details 3:39 pm (6 hours ago)

Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the
National Park Service’s interpretation of the formation of the Grand
Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences
explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our
guidance to the field is contained in NPS Director’s Order # 6 and
requires that the interpretive and educational treatment used to explain
the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best
scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have
stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism.

Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center
films, etc use the following explanation for the age of the geologic
features at Grand Canyon. If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our
rangers use the following answer.

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. The
result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns
on the planet

The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 1.7
billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the
270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since
2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a creationism
view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is
less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the
inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are
photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also
give an alternate view of the canyon’s origin).

The park’s bookstore contains scores of text that give the NPS geologic
view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the “creationism” text in our teaching nor do we endorse
its content. However, it is not our place to censure alternate beliefs.
Much like your local public library, you will find many alternate
beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom.

It is not our place to tell people what to believe. We recognize that
alternate views exist, but we teach the scientific method for the
formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC

Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina # 129)



Ronda Newton
To: Leah McGinnis/GRCA/NPS@NPS
01/03/2007 11:05 cc:
AM MST Subject: Fw: From NPS.gov: A question about the natural history of the Grand Canyon.


Ronda Newton
Grand Canyon National Park
928-638-7771

The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American
people so that all may experience our heritage. EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA

----- Forwarded by Ronda Newton/GRCA/NPS on 01/03/2007 11:05 AM -----

edit: <[[my email address>]] To: grca_information@nps.gov
cc:
12/29/2006 10:56 Subject: From NPS.gov: A question about the natural history of the Grand Canyon.
PM EST

Email submitted from: /grca/contacts.htm


What is the age of the Grand Canyon?

and obviously believes that the creationism theory is bunk, but an alternate theory that they will continue to carry along with the others. I still don't why it bothers me so much that the creationism version is there. Perhaps it is because i doubt that it is there for cultural reasons but rather political ones.

I wonder if the "Flight 93 Memorial" will entertain alternate theories. Wonder if you will be able to but Griffin's or Tarpley's books at that particular book shop.

it seems like the person who finally answered you did so biting his teeth when he mentioned the "alternate theories" section. Like I said, it still bothers me that the creationism theory is there if only because I feel that it is there for political not really cultural reasons as say the alternative indigenous people's beliefs.

There should be nothing threatening to one's religious beliefs in referring to such stories as Christian mythology. Certain Christians, naturally, believe this mythology to be true, and that's their right, but it does not make it any less mythological in nature.

I'm betting that the Native American books referenced, with their alternate view of the canyon's origin, can also reasonably be called mythology.

It's long past time to stop coddling this particular brand of religious fanatic whose faith is so weak that scientific principles are a threat to it.

My book holds the alternate view that the Grand Canyon is 30 miles deep, 2 inches wide, and stretches from Wisconsin to New Jersey.

It is merely a projection of my subconscious self.

And if you'd like to buy my book expanding on this theory, please check in the "Inspirational" section at the Canyon Rim!

That at least the head PR guy at the National Park Service has not drank the kool-aid. Yeah it's a wishy-washy answer, but it boils down to the power the religious right has in this administration. What a bunch of fruitcakes.
dumpbush