The other day I posted this entry about the apparent catering to creationists by the National Park service, including the sale of Creationist books in the Grand Canyon bookstore and the suppression of discussion of the age of the Canyon. One of my readers, Park Ranger X, cautions us not to believe everything you read in the blog Without a Park to Range.
Ranger X says:
"I was skeptical, and after reading PEER's press release, I called the contact listed on the release. On January 3, I spoke with Executive Director Jeff Ruch who told me he talked with unnamed interpretive staff and park rangers. His complained mainly about lack of guidance for rangers on what to say when asked about the canyon's age. Ruch's comments seemed random and unfocused and his claims unsubstantiated. He focused on a book, Grand Canyon: A Different View, sold in the GRCA bookstore that offers a creationist view of the canyon's formation. Ruch stated that since 2003, GRCA has avoided releasing a draft from the geologic services division (I'm not aware of such a division) that gives guidance to park rangers. Incidentally, GRCA started selling the aforementioned book in 2003."
Later on Ranger X notes the following from the official NPS response:
"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 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim."
Further Ranger X supports the sale of the creationist book in question, claiming correctly that it is in the inspirational section of the bookstore and that the bookstore is not run by the NPS but by a private entity.
Which leads me to a couple of comments. Sounds like the rangers only volunteer the information about the age of the Canyon when asked just as you can't find direct reference on the Canyon website to the Canyon's geology and age. Next, the bookstore may be run by a private agency, but presumably on Park Land. Also, I suspect the distinction between the Park Service and a private contractor is lost on the general public. Sorry Ranger X, I am not convinced by your arguments any more than I was by the Kansas Board of Education saying they weren't interested in having intelligent design taught in Kansas school rooms when all the evidence points in the opposite direction.
I for one hope that the new Congress takes a close look at this issue along with other encroachments on science by the Bush administration.
Technorati Tags:
Science
Grand Canyon
Bush
Creationism
1 comment:
I was a seasonal park ranger at two different national parks during Reagan's tenure. Park Rangers detested James Watt, our director at the time. At the little park where I worked, we had an entire wall in the back office filled with anti-James Watt cartoons. We complained about him frequently, but only to each other. We were instructed that if anyone asked us about James Watt, we should refer them to the park superintendent (which would require them to walk past the wall full of anti-James Watt cartoons). At the second park where I worked, we were given an official line to say when anyone asked us about James Watt: "This park has been given x amount of dollars to repair facilities under James Watt. If you have additional questions, please contact the park superintendent." At the same time, we were required to include an environmental message in our tours. One visitor (we were not to call park visitors "tourists") said to me after a tour I gave, "I thought with Reagan in control that we'd no longer have to listen to that environmental garbage."
National parks are chronically underfunded, no matter who is in charge. They have conflicting priorities--to preserve and also to allow for visitors to enjoy the parks. Currently, the parks are being administered by what is to me the enemy. They've been there before, and they'll be there again. Even the lowliest of seasonal park rangers is sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. When your very existence is in peril in ways that laypeople might not envision, you compromise.
But that ranger is also correct--the association that sells the books (because the parks can't sell items directly) decides what to sell in the bookstore. If the Grand Canyon website doesn't fully explicate the geologic history of the park, it's because of the people in control who are opposed to a geological viewpoint. Blame Bush and Focus on the Family. They don't want to hear about reality, so for political reasons related to existence of the parks, reality has to be suppressed. You can't "come out" as a geologist park ranger any more than you can "come out" as an atheist in most school districts. If you do, you can lose your job.
Post a Comment