Faith Based Parks

Posted by Pop Tarts on Friday, November 19, 2004 at 11:10 AM. Read 1079 times. Tags:
{name} pic

This article at Time.com starts off talking about a park run by creationists that adopts the 6000 year old view of how life came to be and the belief that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is false. Which I guess is acceptable since it is a private park run by creationist.

But then comes the bombshell of the changes in the National Park Services, specifically the Grand Canyon National Park.

Two-thirds of the way across the continent, some four million people annually visit Grand Canyon National Park, marveling at the awesome view. In National Park Service (NPS) affiliated bookstores, they can find literature informing them that the great chasm runs for 277 miles along the bed of the Colorado River. It descends more than a mile into the earth, and along one stretch, is some 18 miles wide, its walls displaying impressive layers of limestone, sandstone, shale, schist and granite.

And, oh yes, it was formed about 4,500 years ago, a direct consequence of Noah’s Flood. How’s that? Yes, this is the ill-informed premise of “Grand Canyon, a Different View,” a handsomely-illustrated volume also on sale at the bookstores. It includes the writings of creationists and creation scientists and was compiled by Tom Vail, who with his wife operates Canyon Ministries, conducting creationist-view tours of the canyon. “For years,” Vail explains, “as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time span of millions of years. (Most geologists place the canyon’s age at some six million years). Then I met the Lord. Now I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can’t possibly be more than a few thousand years old.”

An attempt by Joe Alston, the Grand Canyon National Park superintendent, to block the sales of the book was overruled by NPS headquarters under the premise that a high-level policy review of the matter would be launched and a decision made by February 2004, but that never happened:

According to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), an organization that includes many Park employees, papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that no review has ever taken place. Indeed, PEER claims that the Bush Administration has already decided it will stand by its approval for the book and that hundreds more have been ordered. “Now that the book has become quite popular,” explained an NPS flack to a Baptist news agency, “we don’t want to remove it.”

Additionally, the Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate on the age of the canyon, the publication of guidance for park rangers that reminds them of the lack of a scientific basis for creationism has been blocked, and the National Park Service has allowed the placment of bronze plaques bearing Psalm verses at Grand Canyon.

PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch is indignant, “If the Bush Administration is using public resources for pandering to Christian fundamentalists, it should at least have the decency to tell the truth about it.”

Comments:

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Larkinsjapn Japan Posted on 11/23/2004 at 04:48 AM

Larkinsjapn pic

I submit the theory that a thinking fundamentalist is an oxymoron. That we are being lead into armageddon by a bunch of lunatics that would kill their own grandmothers if it would advance their cause. Thank the Budda that I live in Japan. My daughter is 9 years old and can recongnise a developing embryo. I went to the site that critics Well’s reasoning and she recognised the picture faster than me. confused My son is twelve and can already do simple algebraic formulas. We will pay a very big price for the dumbing down of our schools.

zilch Austria Posted on 11/23/2004 at 05:17 AM

zilch pic

Pop Tarts- thanks for finding exactly the right link for Haeckel.  I don’t know much about what’s available on the Net.

Theocrat:

Many biology textbooks still have Haeckel’s drawings in them as if they were fact.

Oh? I went to junior high in the 60’s and even way back then Haeckel’s ontogeny-recapitulates-phylogeny was known to be flawed, an oversimplification at best.  If any modern textbooks still present it as a simple fact, I would be very surprised.  Give us titles and authors.

Socialist Swine and Larkinsjapn- unfortunately all too true.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

David United States Posted on 09/28/2005 at 02:07 PM

David pic

One can “perfectly prove” theories of Gravity and electricity. One can perform actual experiments that are repeatable, something key to the scientific method. I’m still waiting to see that repeatable experiment that shows evolution to be true.

Oh, And theocrat: I was doing a search and this place popped up. Take my advice: Don’t try to teach these pigs to sing. Their faith is too strong to be shaken by mere evidence.

Quasar United States Posted on 09/28/2005 at 05:15 PM

Quasar pic

One can “perfectly prove� theories of Gravity and electricity.

At this time, current gravitational theories are being attacked by studies examining the very largest objects (galaxies) and the very smallest objects (atoms and their components).  You see, gravity doesn’t work at expected at either of these extreme scales.  This disagreement with observations doesn’t invalidate the whole theory, it simply means that there are still some small details to be worked out.  The same is true for theories of evolution.  No reputable biologist believes evolution does not happen, they simply disagree with some of the smaller details of the theory.  Is evolution always gradual process, or are their periods of quick changes followed by relatively quiescent periods of time?  What is the rate of beneficial/harmful mutations in a species?  How rapidly do these changes distribute themselves in the gene pool? 

One can perform actual experiments that are repeatable, something key to the scientific method.

Experimentation is an important part of the scientific method, but it isn’t the only part.  To my knowledge, astronomers have never collided two actual galaxies together to see what will happen, but many scientific theories exist that predict the effects of galaxy collisions, mostly through the use of computer simulations.  These theories make predictions that can subsequently be tested by observations. 

I’m still waiting to see that repeatable experiment that shows evolution to be true.

Start by reading the peer reviewed Journal of Evolutionary Biology.  After that there are numerous monographs and texts on the subject.  If you want to read about experimental evidence for evolution you’ll have to do some work.  To my knowledge we can not yet ‘download’ information directly in to the brain like they do in “The Matrix”. 

Oh, And theocrat: I was doing a search and this place popped up. Take my advice: Don’t try to teach these pigs to sing. Their faith is too strong to be shaken by mere evidence.

Ah, the old “I know you are, but what am I?” defense.  Scientists present *mountains* of evidence proving evolution occurs (fossil record, genetics, etc...) and since this contradicts a religious book you decide it cannot be correct.  We point this out to you and you reply “Their faith is too strong to be shaken by mere evidence”.  What evidence have you provided to disprove evolution?

Les United States Posted on 09/28/2005 at 05:37 PM

Les pic

One can “perfectly prove� theories of Gravity and electricity. One can perform actual experiments that are repeatable, something key to the scientific method.

If you feel this is true then you wouldn’t mind taking the time to explain to us what gravity is. Sure, we know a lot about it’s effects on space and time, but can you tell me what it’s made of and how it works? If you can you’re in line for a Nobel prize. I won’t be holding my breath.

I’m still waiting to see that repeatable experiment that shows evolution to be true.

Really? Then start reading. This is but one set of examples.

Their faith is too strong to be shaken by mere evidence.

That’s pretty funny coming from someone who’s just admitted he’s ignorant of the evidence in support of Evolution.

 Signature 

All I know is the wine lasts longer when you don’t gotta share it with someone
All I know is my steak tastes better when I take my steak tastes better pill
-- I Feel Fantastic, Jonathan Coulton

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main