It's About Time Someone Reigned in Those Geologists!

[Lemur]

Just a little update: Of twenty-six books submitted to be carried by the gift shops at the Grand Canyon, only one has been approved over the last three years. It's an Intelligent Design book. In further news about how much fun it is to be a geologist in the U.S.:

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. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

[Kralizec]

That's the same link that I posted on page 1

[Gregoshi]

In order not to disturb anyone's beliefs, the age of the wall I'm banging my head against is irrelevant.

[Redleg]

Just a little update: Of twenty-six books submitted to be carried by the gift shops at the Grand Canyon, only one has been approved over the last three years. It's an Intelligent Design book. In further news about how much fun it is to be a geologist in the U.S.:

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. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

Now I have my doubts about the creditablity of the story as written in the quote and the link. The bookstore link at the National Park Service states that the book stores are operated by The bookstores throughout Grand Canyon National Park, are operated by the Grand Canyon Association. GCA is a private, non-profit organization founded in 1932 to support the educational goals of the National Park Service at Grand Canyon.



http://www.nps.gov/grca/supportyourpark/bookstore.htm

You can follow the link to find out what books are available online from the bookstore.

Then from the Question and Answer section from the Grand Canyon Park Web Site

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. (top of page)

http://www.nps.gov/grca/faqs.htm#old

Maybe I am missing something but the news articles smack more of politics then reality. Now its been over a decade since I was last at the Grand Canyon but they definitely discussed ages of rocks then.

And during my recent trip to Yellowstone (1.5 years ago), geology and the age of geyser formations were activitly discussed by Park Rangers.

[Gregoshi]

Redleg, I certainly hope you are right about the political angle. As much as I hate politics, I'd prefer that to the reality portrayed in the article. I did some searching on my own after your post yesterday and I could find nothing to back up the original story - the search hits I found all drew from the same source. I even spent some time on the US government website searching for anything on the issue.

I was at the Grand Canyon in the summer of 2005 and the shuttle bus guides did talk about the age of things - and it certainly wasn't on a biblical timeline. However, I don't know if the guides were in the employ of the National Park Service or an independent firm.

[Redleg]

Well I found this little bit of a formal press release.

Recent news reports suggesting the Bush administration is trying to muzzle scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by placing new controls on approval and release of research plans and products are off base and misinformed about the intent of the changes being formalized at the agency. Speaking as the senior biologist at the USGS, I am deeply concerned that longstanding legitimate scientific peer review processes that have been the basis of scientific practices at the USGS and other scientific agencies and organizations have been mischaracterized as inappropriate political controls on research. Peer review is the bedrock of processes in any credible science organization that ensures scientific conclusions or findings are robust, independent and objective.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The USGS has had such processes in place for many years. As with any science enterprise, policies are periodically reviewed and updated to keep pace with changes in the organization. Our recently revised policy is an effort to do just that and has been developed by scientists and science managers (not political appointees) in an effort to coordinate existing review processes.

Research supervisors in the review chain are simply charged with ensuring all USGS information products have addressed peer comments and are in compliance with USGS procedures with regard to the review and release of scientific information. Furthermore, the notion that senior leadership in an organization should not be alerted to significant findings that will directly impact policy development and decision-making is disturbing. Under current policy this information is transferred to policy makers as it is released to the public.

Characterizing these reviews as an attempt by the Bush administration to control and censor scientific findings is inaccurate, is a disservice to those scientists who developed those processes in the spirit of continually improving our commitment to excellent science and undermines the bedrock of the peer review process as an arbiter of the credibility of individual science products and facilitator of science progress and discussion

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1588