Grand Canyon – How Old Is It? – Do You Really Care?
Word Around the Net has an interesting post – GRAND CAN’TYON
I wonder, will the anti-God “scientists†write and say anything to eliminate any possible alternative to their thinking? Of course, with our current higher education system that does not like to delve into the history of science so that the student learns that 20 years ago science said one thing and 10 years ago another and today yet something else on the same subject. Is evolution the process of learning or is it science?
The post starts out addressing the issue of a “journalist†and his inaccurate reporting:
When caught short, he offered to resign because he’d failed to do his job as a journalist and study the case before presuming it was true – a case of confirmation bias, where you believe something because you want it to be true or it fits what you believe to be true, rather than based on any study. It confirms your opinions, so you figure it to be accurate. Terry Lane’s way of putting it was “I fell for it because I wanted to believe it.” The Age, the paper Mr Lane writes for, refused to accept the resignation, and Mr Lane plugs on.
The post continues:
It appears he’s done it again. Here’s an excerpt from the Grand Canyon National Park website in their History and Science section:
Geologic formations such as gneiss and schist found at the bottom of the Canyon date back 1,800 million years.
And from the History and Culture section:
The oldest human artifacts found are nearly 12,000 years old and date to the Paleo-Indian period.
I wonder who came up with these dates? Could it be science?
This doesn’t placate the “my way or the highway” community. It’s the book…THE BOOK…
Our local scientist’s blog, Northstate Science, has the following posts – National Park Service Clarifies Position on Age of the Grand Canyon…Possibly
Apparently the National Park Service has just officially clarified its position on the creationist book being sold at the Grand Canyon and declared the following:
“In a statement issued by the National Park Service (NPS) Chief of Public Affairs, David Barna, on January 4th, the agency contends that park rangers have been instructed to ‘use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon…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 Grand Canyon will, however, continue to sell the book in the visitor center bookstore, although in the “inspirational” section and not with the science books. As the article notes, this is the first time the National Park Service has officially distanced itself from the creationist book, which is good, but it still doesn’t explain the following:
Grand Canyon Creationism One More Time
There is still the issue of the creationist book remaining on sale at the park bookstore and promises from the NPS administration to review the situation that have yet to be completed. However, RangerX put an interesting spin on the sale of the book that makes me want to consider opposition to it the park context:
Got it…it’s THE BOOK
Back to the original post. Here is part of a Q & A with the Park’s Public Affairs Director:
First off, is the rumor that that park employees and those who work on the park lands are not allowed to talk about the estimated geological age of the canyon true?
Incorrect, and further the PEER writer [the material quoted by Terry Lane] never called the park to research this allegation.
Never called the park? Interesting…
Have you ever heard of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility?
Yes, and I am very disappointed in them.
Gee, I wonder why…and here comes THE BOOK question:
I understand you have a book in the bookstore that gives the Creation Science explanation of the canyon, is this true?
Yes it is, this book is in our inspirational section. The book was approved three years ago.
She referred me then to Brad Wallis who is in charge of the book stores, so I called him, and he was glad to help, again this is as accurate a summary as I can manage rather than exact quotes:
How many books do you have in the bookstore? Of them, how many are from a different perspective than the CS one?
“We have in our biggest store from 800 to 850 books. Of them 300 are science based or scientific in nature, and none are from a young earth/Creation Science perspective.â€
He went on to reiterate that this book was in the inspiration section, and that this section has poetry and other works in it. He also pointed out that there are also books with the Native American stories of how the canyon and the world were created, as well as theories postulated by early explorers as to the canyon’s origin. I didn’t think to ask if the tall tale of Paul Bunyan’s axe dragging on the ground was included in these origins.
The Bonham-line is simple…we really don’t know how old the Grand Canyon is. A birth certificate has yet to be found. 20 years from now it may have aged a million years or grown younger by a thousand. This is not a life or death discussion so why would “scientists” be so up in arms over the issue? There is something about people telling me that I must believe something because someone in authority says that it is true…some how this leads me back to Marxism…the Park is 1,800 million years old? Good by me. I won’t get upset if that number is changed to 2,000 or 1,600 million years. None of this proves that government is attempting to stifle the truth.
My only thought on the science is this. Making a big stink about this could be detrimental to future findings. If the number changes can the public say “were you stupid back when you came up with the 1,800 million years or did you simply evolve?”
A long post over simply nothing…we have bigger problems in the world to worry about than the spat between religion and science and a BOOK!