I call bullshit on the Noah's flood/ Grand Canyon story

[Connonym]

If we spread lies we're no better than the fundie asswipes.

The original article on Alternet states "According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a report released this week , Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees." (http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/don/46043/)

The PEER report (http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf) states "Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as “no comment” and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters."

_____
The National Parks website states "How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young. (top of page)

Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?

No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada."
_____
It seems to be true that they are selling a book stating that the Grand Canyon resulted from Noah's flood but no where in there does it state that park Rangers are not allowed to tell the true age of the canyon. Sure the book is ignorant and selling it a poor choice but that is a whole different animal than making park Rangers tell people that the flood caused the Grand Canyon. Some pretty shitty cite sourcing by the Alternet article in my opinion. Yes the fundies are ruining science in plenty of ways but this is not one of them and we shouldn't exagerate or misrepresent the truth to make them look worse. They manage to look pretty fucking bad on their own. Let's not sink to their level.

[Taverner]

1. Has anyone submitted this to snopes.com yet?

[Connonym]

3. I actually searched this on Snopes yesterday

This seemed over the top even for the fundies and my bullshit meter went off. Snopes didn't have anything on it but I still wasn't satisfied so I looked at the references in the Alternet article. It was also fishy to me that I didn't see this story on any "mainstream" news. Again, I'm not saying that the fundies aren't dangerous to science or that they should be selling the book about the flood but we don't need to spread lies that they're making the Rangers say it was the flood. The truth is all we need on our side.

[seabeyond]

4. hubby didnt think it true either. told me to go to canyon site and see

if they are really selling the book. not a big enough issue for me to. sits there with maybe, maybe not

[Taverner]

7. Me too

They wouldn't do this yet

They would need a bit more power

Then again Bush does see himself as God's appointed...

[Connonym]

10. the thing that's really scary about it

is that you can picture the fundies trying to actually push that agenda. No doubt about it, they're dangerous and things have to change soon or we risk the US scientific community losing any remaining credibility.

[donheld]

57. You all must check this out

http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/education/LessonPlans/Geotimeline_LessonPlans.htm

[seabeyond]

2. self delete. i thought you were calling bullshit that it was noahs flood

or that earth is only 6999 years old. lol

[Quantess]

5. Now THAT would be funny and priceless!

I wish we had a mascot DUer like that!:silly: To lighten up our serious moments...:rofl:

[Oeditpus Rex]

6. Nice catch

:thumbsup:

[HereSince1628]

8. Anyone know if Chris(?) Mooney says anything about this in his

book on the republican war on science?

I think this story is a rerun of something I've come in contact with before I just don't know where.

[A Simple Game]

17. I don't know about the Chris Mooney book, but

you are right, this story is a rerun.

I'm sure I saw it on DU a month, or two, or six ago.

[damntexdem]

9. No, bullshit is an honest product of natural biological processes, ...

just as the Grand Canyon is an honest product of natural geological processes. By contrast, the Flood account is a fantasy spun out by ideologues who wish to impose their religious views on an entity of the U.S. Government.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. They're still pushing the creationist book in the science bookstore

when they've rejected other texts.

"Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book."

If they're going to be boosting the idea that the Canyon was created during "Noah's Flood" (and allowing bronze prosetlyzation plaques to be stuck all over park land) they damn well need to allow books claiming that the Canyon was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too.

Bottom line? It's clear from the FOIA request that the NPS promised to review the status and approval of this "literature", and then completely blew it off. That is unacceptable.

[madeline_con]

19. Thank you for pointing this out.

I'd read something to that effect months ago.

[mrcheerful]

12. Hey I'm still waiting for a Baptist minister to get back with me on a question I asked him 35 years

ago. The question I asked, how do you explain the petrified forest? It seems that the fundies choose to ignore or acknowledge that there is such a place.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Google seems to indicate they have put a lot of energy

into spinning a massive spew of bullshit on exactly this issue. It is all quite amusing. Much of the debunking appears to come from 'old earth' creationists who are so embarassed by their inbred cousins that they feel compelled to denounce them.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Well it does not seem to be total bullshit.

I'd say that the alternet story perhaps exagerates the situation, which is stupid, as the PEER document clearly establishes that some massive religious idiocy is going on with respect to the NPS, the grand canyon, and the fundaloons with their young earth nonsense.

It really comes down to what "not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature" means. Your claim is that this statement at alternet is substantially different than the PEER complaint that "Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis."

The question seems to revolve around 'official guidance' is vs what park rangers might say and what might happen to still appear in NPS publications. As the PEER document states, right now there is no official guidance on young earth idiocy, the administration is blocking publication of such official guidance, and refuses to issue an official statement on the geological age of the grand canyon.

The alternet story is sloppy but not bullshit.

[K8-EEE]

18. Yes, exactly....! Are the employees lying about these directives?

Why the hold up with the science v. religion pamphlet, why the "no comment" directive, why aren't they reviewing the Noah book as they promised??

It's not bullshit...

[beam me up scottie]

22. Thank you!

This is the third damn thread I've found where these amateur sleuths have declared that this is "bunk" without even reading the letter or the report.

They are so busy trying to point out how stupid other people are, they make asses out of themselves.

[WindRavenX]

15. God, I hope so. I'm hoping Snopes get on it.

Because if it's true--holy shit.

[Mike Nelson]

16. Lord, What Fools These Christians Be!

Lord, What Fools These Christians Be!

[Crabby Appleton]

20. and this NPS page

bottom of first papagraph

[beam me up scottie]

21. Bullshit? Did you even read the report or the letter?

In August 2003, the Park Service approved a creationist text, Grand Canyon: A Different
View, for sale in park bookstores and museums. The book by Tom Vail claims that the
Grand Canyon is really only a few thousand years old, developing over a biblical rather
than an evolutionary time scale. That same month, the Grand Canyon National Park
superintendent appealed to NPS Headquarters for a “review of the book in terms of its
appropriateness” for sale in a park-sponsored facility.

*******

During this same period, a review by Park Service geologists not only found the book
wildly inaccurate but that its sale violated agency policies and undercut its scientific
education programs. On January 25, 2004 David Shaver, the Chief of the Park Service’s
Geologic Resources Division sent a memo (enclosed) to NPS Headquarters calling for
removal of the book, concluding --

“Our review of …NPS policies and Grand Canyon: A Different View, lead us to
conclude that this book: does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge;
is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's
understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; does not further the mission of the
National Park Service…and finally, that this book should not have been approved for
sale in NPS affiliated book sales.”

**************

8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists,
and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and
educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current
scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of geological,
biological, and evolutionary processes. 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. The facts, theories, and
interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in
such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology.
Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to
endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however,
may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events.
(Emphasis added)

You didn't even read the report and the letter and you're accusing other people of being lazy?

[lovuian]

23. This is an example of Bush History Bush Science Thought police

In Orwell 1984 The Thought Police provided the information
and you WERE TO BELIEVE the information

How nice to give a little child a wonderful tale about Noah and his Ark at Grand Canyon

The beginning of the THOUGHT POLICE

And BUSH is rewriting HISTORY soon our History books will be saying Noah floated down the Grand Canyon

and when the Teachers (Thought Police) tell you it Trusting citizen will BELIEVE

It works on the Innocent and trusting
but its evil at its worst

[beam me up scottie]

24. I was just quoting Orwell today.

Did you ever think, that in the 21st century we would be back here?

[Connonym]

56. Yes, bullshit, did you even read my post?

I'll reiterate:
The original article on Alternet states "According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a report released this week , Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees." (http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/don/46043 /)

The PEER report (http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pd... ) states " As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as “no comment” and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters."

Furthermore the official web site for the Grand Canyon states the age of the canyon being "millions" of years old.

I'm not sure what you're reading but I don't find anything in the PEER report that remotely indicates "National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature" What it says is this "As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims.

That's not saying the same thing. In the letter Alternet quotes there is absolutely NOTHING saying that rangers are being "not permitted to give an official estimate" it actually states "no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims. You don't don't see the difference in "not permitted to" versus "no official guidance as to how to answer" ? Perhaps Alternet has other information indicating that they park employees are "not permitted" to give the truth but they don't cite a single source that says this. THAT is shoddy journalism.

The point I was making (did you read the OT?) was that the truth of what is going on (selling books purporting that Noah's flood resulted in the formation of the Grand Canyon) is sufficiently awful on it's own right that we do not need to embellish on it by making claims that park rangers are told they must not state the truth. Selling a book of propaganda isn't the same thing as willfully instructing employees to ignore science and teach the propaganda.

It's my position that if we exagerate the truth and misrepresent what is actually going on (which, even without embellisment, is a shocking abuse of religion in government) then WE are being just as disingenuous as they are. The book is the problem, the lack of official scientific guidelines is the problem but there is no evidence any park employee is being required to lie to the public. So why are we saying that they are? Instead of throwing out red herrings let's deal with the real issue which is the need to prevent them from selling the ridiculous book of religious fiction in a national park. The truth is on our side here, let's take the high road and stick to the actual facts and leave the sleazy sensationalism to FAUX news.

[kevinbgoode]

25. The Grand Canyon is owned by the people of the United States

which has a Constitution that does not allow government endorsement of any one particular "religious" belief. A government-operated store is no place for the sales of only ONE religious viewpoint.

If the Grand Canyon has any association with religion, it would be Native American lore. The park does not belong to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, nor are the people of the United States required to provide tax dollars to provide marketing space for their "religious" views alone.

[beam me up scottie]

26. The op is misleading.

It's not about how many books are for sale, it's about violations of NPS regulations.

Read the letter in question here: http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf

[lovuian]

27. Thanks Scottie Its about the NPS promoting CREATIONISM

which is religious fundamentalism by allowing a book to be sold over the internet under their name
to children and it promotes creationism

The Park system's website instructs Teachers on lesson plans and has classes for children

So HOW DOES A PARK RANGER TEACH??? And it makes you wonder what are they teaching if creationism
is to be stepped lightly around

They have deliberately not done what the Congress has asked

Maybe with a Democratic Congress this Thought Police action will come to a HALT

The Alternet article drew attention to the subject
Its the Cheney agenda Children Books with misinformation

[beam me up scottie]

28. Maybe you could tell these guys:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2995921&mesg_id=3011050

They spent an awful lot of time smearing PEER without doing any research of their own. :mad:

And we wonder how the NPS could get hijacked by fundamentalists.

[kevinbgoode]

29. Isn't this the same National Park Service

which operates the monuments in Washington, DC. . .and which REMOVED footage of gay rights demonstrations from a documentary feature at the Lincoln Memorial at the demands of evangenitals? I believe it ADDED footage of wingnut "christian" demonstrations, even though NONE were held at the Lincoln Memorial.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Yes, it is.

And if what I was told today is true, Park Rangers are no longer hired, they're "appointed".

I'm still checking on that.

Even so, I cannot believe more people are not outraged over this.

[kevinbgoode]

31. I was outraged at the time of the removal of the gay footage

and sent a very pointed protest email to the Park Service - naturally, I never received any response.

This is something that will likely require an organized campaign to Congress to have corrected. I was furious when they had that footage removed from the Lincoln Memorial film - it was an outrage that con-servative "Christians" are allowed to eliminate references to history simply because the existence of some Americans is considered offensive.

[beam me up scottie]

32. I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg.

We know for a fact that many scientists have been forced to compromise their research findings since the Bush Administration took over.

How many other government employees, like the ones in PEER, have been forced to compromise their integrity so as to not offend the delicate sensibilities of the people who installed Bush?

[charlie]

33. Many, many, many, I'm sure

One of the things Republicans always do is consolidate their gains institutionally, so their policies can be preserved if they're kicked out. Remember the NASA kid who oversaw their websites and forced purges of scientific info for creationism? The blitzkrieg destruction of the EPA libraries, with documents and materials sold for fractions of a penny on the dollar? That freakshow appointee to the FDA who repeatedly anally raped his wife? The handing over of CPA reconstruction projects to mere pups, whose only qualification was ideological fidelity? Our civic infrastructure is polluted with Bushco clowns and it'll be years before we're rid of them all.

[beam me up scottie]

34. I don't know if we can ever fix this.

If we don't keep both houses and take the White House in 08, I doubt we ever will.

[beam me up scottie]

35. You know, I just get so angry

thinking about how people on the LEFT are attacking Dawkins, Harris, PZ and others for standing up to these anti-intellectual troglodytes.

How dare they suggest religion isn't reality-based?

How dare they call faith irrational?


They are telling people that we have to FEAR the scientists who are the only ones standing in the way of the dominionists.


It kills me.

[Bluebear]

36. Stop!

You'll "make us look bad"!
:banghead:

[beam me up scottie]

38. I hate to say it.

But if things don't go our way in 08, I'm seriously considering applying for German citizenship.

I don't want to give up yet, but damn.

[Bluebear]

40. I had dual citizenship until age 18.

Just trivia.

I just don't know if it is Democrats here who are slowly abandoning progressive ideals or if it is in general nationwide. Or if people are just afraid to have principles anymore. :scared:

[beam me up scottie]

45. Have you been out in GD today much?

I don't know what site I'm on anymore.

[charlie]

47. You need a little bucking up

Let me show you my Pokemons.

[beam me up scottie]

49. ROFLMAO!!!

:rofl:

Where do you get those???

[charlie]

50. Seeeeecret

A little closed-membership site where they trade in oddball files. I watch the stuff go by and snag what I like.

You can get the same sort of stuff if you keep an eye on the Photoshopping fools at www.worth1000.com or www.somethingawful.com :)

[beam me up scottie]

51. thank you!

Wanna blow your mind?

I just typed the following and posted it and in that thread, it made sense:

"The rapist is not in the room. He doesn't know the baby exists. There are no cars in the room either"

[charlie]

52. Egads

Is there some kind of mass delirium going on in that thread?

Nevermind, I probably don't want to know about it. I'm feeling mellow today.

[beam me up scottie]

53. It's surreal.

People like that can't exist, I am mellow too, and my mind will just not allow for that kind of cteature to exist outside of DU Twighlight Zone.

[beam me up scottie]

54. This is just so WRONG!

:rofl:

[charlie]

55. I'm an open-minded leftie

If kitty enjoys a little recreation with Marquis de Mouse, it's none of my business :D

I like these How to Hide an Elephant pics:

[Quantess]

41. You guys are mean. You're crapping on Noah.

People like the story of Noah because he was a nice guy who cared about animals. You just want to take the joy away from America. At least Noah believed in kindness.


:rofl:
I crack myself up sometimes.

[Bluebear]

42. And he took two of each kind of animal. And made the Grand Canyon.

And stuff.

[Quantess]

43. Hey, at least Noah promoted family values!

1 male animal + 1 female animal = MARRIAGE

And Noah was a nice guy, too. And he had a strong work ethic. He built that ship himself! Obviously, you scientists don't care about family values or work ethic.

[beam me up scottie]

44. IT'S NOT FUNNY!

Well, okay, it used to be funny. :D


Until I started working with people who believe that, that is.

Seriously.

Lock, stock and barrel.

[Quantess]

46. You're right it isn't funny. It's ridiculous.

But I gave myself a good laugh tonight. I'm in a jovial mood.

Sorry to hear you actually have to work with people like that.

I heard the story of Noah as a kid, and I never believed it for a second. I could tell it was BS at age 6, so why do these wackadoos cling to the story? My guess is, they know it's silly fantasy folklore, but they feel guilty to come out and say Noah didn't actually exist, because that would be so mean, denying all those good qualities that Noah represents, like family values, and kindness to animals, and work ethic. :crazy: Someone should slap them.

[beam me up scottie]

48. No, these are serious guys, all educated.

This is fundamentalism.

They have been programmed from an early age and it would take nothing short of a "miracle" to make them doubt their faith.

[charlie]

37. No kidding

Seems like it was de rigeur for a while for just about every organ of the "left" to put up some sort of chiding, condescending dismissal of Dawkins and Harris. If their plates weren't already full with ripe, egregious targets on the right, they should've been. Stupid waste of time and effort.

[beam me up scottie]

39. They're still doing it!

Like the guys who have been claiming this PEER thing is bullshit without ever checking into it.

Haha, those stupid Park Rangers, what do they know?

:mad:

[Connonym]

58. You're comparing apples and oranges

And totally missing the point. Nowhere did I claim the PEER report was bullshit. I said that Alternet irresponsibly exagerated the PEER report to make it seem more sensational. Of course Noah's fucking flood is mythical but it's also mythical to say that rangers are being told to LIE. There is NOTHING in the PEER report to indicate that rangers are told they must put forth the flood myth, nothing. Set your preconceived notions aside and read just the PEER report. I may be missing something right in front of me but I re-read it several times and found nothing in the PEER report to support Alternet's statement that rangers are being told to perpetuate the myth of the flood. Please, show me the section you are referring to and I will redact my claim that Alternet's story is bullshit for misrepresenting what the PEER report stated. Read what I'm actually saying here. And watch who you call lazy and stupid because I think in this case you're the one not grasping the larger concept of the consequence of irresponsible journalism destroying credibility.