Bye, Teddy....until the next time....

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON�T SAY � Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Washington, DC � 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.��

In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.

According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.

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.

Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on �Interpretation and Education (Director�s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the �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 [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.�

�As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,� Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. �We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.�

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred

See the 2005 NPS Director�s Order #6 on Interpretation

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)

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew

Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of �Faith-Based Parks�

Obviously, no human being on earth can say with any degree of credibility that agnostics call out to Jesus when the time is near. Nobody can possibly know what every other person on earth calls out, if anything.

For some, peace comes from religion. Others are able to find peace within themselves. Some never find it. Each person must follow their heart and brain and find the niche that works best for them.

I guess Islamic fascists aren't the only ones who try to force their religion on everyone else. The difference is that the United States isn't supposed to favor one religion over another. We're supposed to be a nation that has religious freedom.

This is especially dangerous during a time when war with religious fanatics is involved. To pledge undying, unquestioning loyalty and support of Israel in political matters (even if some feel they have acted badly) soley for personal religious reasons (to insure one's place in heaven) is very dangerous to the United States and the rest of the world. This is why politics and religion don't mix, and this is why the United States is becoming such a scary place. :-(

And liberals are posting on the conservative board and do you see us ordering them off? You really have no tolerance. And by the way, the little article about dissention in the ranks, it seems all isn't what it appears to be. Shocker there.

When the possibility of far-reaching war crimes and crimes against humanity exists, people of conscience have a solemn responsibility to inquire into the nature and scope of these acts and to determine if they do in fact rise to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That is the mission of the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity. The first session will be held October 21-22 in New York City. This tribunal will, with care and rigor, present evidence and assess whether George W. Bush and his administration have committed crimes against humanity. Well-established international law will be referenced where applicable, but the tribunal will not be limited by the scope of existing international law.

The tribunal will deliberate on four categories of indictable crimes: 1) Wars of Aggression, with particular reference to the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. 2) Torture and Indefinite Detention, with particular reference to the abandonment of international standards concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and the use of torture. 3) Destruction of the Global Environment, with particular reference to systematic policies contributing to the catastrophic effects of global warming. 4) Attacks on Global Public Health and Reproductive Rights, with particular reference to the genocidal effects of forcing international agencies to promote abstinence only in the midst of a global AIDS epidemic.

The Commission's jury of conscience will be composed of internationally respected jurists and legal scholars, prominent voices of conscience, and experts and monitors in relevant fields. The tribunal's legitimacy is derived from its integrity, its rigor in the presentation of evidence, and the stature of its participants. Representatives of the Bush administration will be invited to present a defense.

Prior to the meeting of the Commission, teams with sufficient expertise will prepare preliminary indictments in each of the four areas, setting forth the scope of the Bush administration's actions and how they contravene legal and moral norms for international behavior. At the meeting of the Commission, there will be four prosecution teams that organize the presentation of the evidence. This evidence will be documents as well as eyewitness testimony by victims and observers of the crimes alleged. The formal proceedings will be held in a public venue and all attempts will be made to publicize and broadcast its deliberations internationally. The Commission's jury of conscience will come to verdicts and its findings will be published.

The holding of this tribunal will frame and fuel a discussion that is urgently needed in the United States: Is the administration of George W. Bush guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity? The Commission will conduct its work with a deep sense of responsibility to the people of the world.

The Commission is sponsored by the Not In Our Name statement of conscience, joined by the following individuals and organizations:

This board will return to a dead state too

The stupid rules have made these boards a place where only crickets chirp. Its sad that people are so childish and cannot discuss things like mature adults. This is why these boards will remain a snoozeville, because some people are not capable of mature conversation and get insulted by anyone who does not believe exactly like they do, but if you like it dead here...by all means enjoy the silence.

I watched a TV broadcast; it evoked thoughts in my mind. The thoughts irritated me. I FELT uneasy and I THOUGHT I could print the same on this board and why. This is, after all, still America despite the speech police and this is, after all still the liberal board.

I couldn't disagree more. I think Obama is going to be torn apart if he is the nominee, more so than Clinton would. Really, I just do not like the guy. I think he is totally arrogant, along with his wife

, and I do not believe for a minute that he is honest. Of course, Clinton isn't either. They're both lousy.

Yes, Ron Paul is out of the race...that's what I said, loooool. In my opinion, he was the only person who ran that would be worthy of the presidency.