LOL at all the comments, as betrayed by my string of comment upvotes. Ah, the joy of watching something horrible. I too stirred a repressed memory of seeing this in theatre.

The theatre has since been converted into a bookstore, no doubt because of shock incurred from showing this bomb.

That was actually dated the month before the National Park Services response...so those are the points they are attempting to address. The most current response from PEER regarding the National Park Service response is as follows.

EVOLVING GRAND CANYON POSITION LEAVES UNANSWERED QUESTIONS — National Park Service Now Distancing Itself from Creationist Book It Approved

Washington, DC — The National Park Service insists that it does not teach creationism or endorse the view that the Grand Canyon is the product of Noah’s Flood, according to a new agency public statement posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Despite this statement, the agency will continue selling a book making those “Young Earth” claims about the origin of the canyon – a book that top agency officials approved over the objections of its own park superintendent

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 statement adds, “Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old…We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content.”

While this is the first time that the Park Service has gone on record distancing itself from the book, Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, on sale in park bookstores, the Barna statement does not explain:

* Why did the Park Service approve it for sale? Under agency rules, park officials are only to allow display materials of the highest accuracy and which support approved park interpretive themes in its bookstores;
* What happened to the “policy review” on the book promised in public statements and in letters to members of Congress by Barna and other NPS officials?
* Why has NPS refused for the past five years to issue the pamphlet entitled “Geologic Interpretive Programs: Distinguishing Science from Religion” providing guidance to park rangers and other interpretive staff on how to answer questions relating to creationism, evolution and related topics?

The Barna statement notes “This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore” but omits the fact that this “inspirational” section was created after PEER exposed the fact that the book was being sold as a “natural history.” The inspirational section now includes anthropological works on Native American culture but no other work remotely resembling the Vail book.

The new Park Service statement implies it will keep selling the creationist book for the foreseeable future, despite protests from the agency’s own specialists that the book’s approval violated Park Service rules.

“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”

It's still stupid that they are carrying the book...but it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal as it was made out to be...that Park Service Employees weren't allowed to say how old the Grand Canyon was etc...

but upon further inspection it seems more like a whitewash when examining the history of the story. (read below) Sometimes it's the things not mentioned when someone is giving an explanation.

http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf

In August 2003, the Park Service approved a creationist text, Grand Canyon: A Different View, for sale in park bookstores and museums. The book by Tom Vail claims that the Grand Canyon is really only a few thousand years old, developing over a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. That same month, the Grand Canyon National Park superintendent appealed to NPS Headquarters for a “review of the book in terms of its appropriateness” for sale in a park-sponsored facility.

In repeated public statements and in response to inquiries from members of Congress, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna stated that NPS would conduct a high-level policy review. He distributing talking points stating: “We hope to have a final decision in February [2004].” In late February 2004, Mr. Barna crafted a letter which was sent to concerned members of Congress stating: “We hope to have a final decision on the book in March 2004.” That draft was rewritten in June and finally sent out to Congressional representatives with no completion date for the review at all.

In fact, the promised review never occurred. According to responses PEER obtained from NPS under the Freedom of Information Act, NPS deliberately avoided conducting the review in order to let the controversy die down. Meanwhile, the Grand Canyon Association ordered hundreds more copies of the book and offered it for a time for sale on the internet site as “natural history” (it is now the sole offering in a heretofore nonexistent category labeled “inspirational”).

During this same period, a review by Park Service geologists not only found the book wildly inaccurate but that its sale violated agency policies and undercut its scientific education programs. On January 25, 2004 David Shaver, the Chief of the Park Service’s Geologic Resources Division sent a memo (enclosed) to NPS Headquarters calling for removal of the book, concluding --
“Our review of …NPS policies and Grand Canyon: A Different View, lead us to conclude that this book: does not use accurate, professional and scholarly knowledge; is not based on science but a specific religious doctrine; does not further the public's understanding of the Grand Canyon's existence; does not further the mission of the National Park Service…and finally, that this book should not have been approved for sale in NPS affiliated book sales.”

At the same time, Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as “no comment” and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters.

________________________

Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar
http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf

View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred.
http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_foia_response.pdf

See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation
http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder6.html

Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=428

Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”
http://www.peer.org/campaigns/publiclands/faith-based/index.php

^ very impressed with grimm and sourcing this. you are *quality

In reply to this comment by Grimm:
National Park Services Responce:

Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the National Park Service’s interpretation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our guidance to the field is contained in the NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director’s Order # 6 and requires that 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. Our commitment to scientific accuracy is also driven by Director’s Order #11B, which requires us to ensure the objectivity of the information we disseminate.

Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon. 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 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternative view of the canyon’s origin). The park’s bookstore contains scores of texts that give the NPS geologic view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, neither do we censor alternative beliefs. Much like your local public library, you will find many alternative beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom. It is not our role to tell people what to believe. We recognize that alternative views exist, but we teach the scientific explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC
Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina #129)

National Park Services Responce:

Recently there have been several media and internet reports concerning the National Park Service’s interpretation of the formation of the Grand Canyon.

The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon. Our guidance to the field is contained in the NPS Management Policies 2006 and NPS Director’s Order # 6 and requires that 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. Our commitment to scientific accuracy is also driven by Director’s Order #11B, which requires us to ensure the objectivity of the information we disseminate.

Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon. 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 1.7 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 270 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim.

So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation? Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than six thousand years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section there are photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternative view of the canyon’s origin). The park’s bookstore contains scores of texts that give the NPS geologic view of the formation of the canyon.

We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, neither do we censor alternative beliefs. Much like your local public library, you will find many alternative beliefs, but not all of these beliefs are used in the school classroom. It is not our role to tell people what to believe. We recognize that alternative views exist, but we teach the scientific explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon.

I hope this explanation helps.

David Barna
Chief of Public Affairs
National Park Service
Washington, DC
Registered Professional Geologist (AIPG #6528)
Licensed Geologist (North Carolina #129)

I almost put it in the Vintage channel, but I'm scared of swampgirl

There's another clip from this movie here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Rare-Eye-Bookstore

Wow roughy, I live in a town with 1 church, 120 bars, and 13 bookstores.....kinna sounds like Alaska, innit???

Most of the folks who express their religious distaste with the most gusto, have a long way to go towards authentic, healthy, actualization. Most folks (this includes fundies of any kind) don't even know what God is, concept of or personal relationship, notwithstanding.

I don't really hate religion, but I've got a beef with the way some people practice it. I wish more Christians were like Jesus, I wish more Jews treated non-Jews as equal human beings, and I wish that more Muslims would decide to advance their views into at least the 20th century.

I live in a town with 1 bookstore, 13 bars, and 120 churches and it's about as backwards as backwards gets.

I think Doug Stanhope put it pretty well.

Let's say you come from another planet, therefore you've never heard of the Bible. Never heard of religion. Never heard of evolution. Had no pre-conception of the background of humans or the world.

You go into a used bookstore and find a copy of the Bible.

You can seriously say that once you finished reading it that you would say that it makes perfect sense and explains the history of the world?

Or would you say that it is just a fiction book along with the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys books you read.

Knowing nothing else of history, why would the Bible be the one that is right, rather than say the encyclopedias? Because the encyclopedia has pictures and therefore can't be right?

raven would like 'Moonchild' I'm a little more partial to his other book 'Diary of a Drug Fiend' which was one of the first honest portrayals of hard narcotic use. And despite his anti-literary approach to writing the ending is quite a revelation that will catch the reader off guard. For the depths of artistic depravity, there is his collection of poems 'Clouds Without Water' which I was fortunate (or cursed) enough to find a printing of from the 1950s at a used bookstore for a dollar-fifty, can never read more than one page at a time though.

Great post gwaan!

Ah, yes. Canada Customs/ Douanes Canada- not only do they protect us from tree-eating spiders, but also from the perils of Little Sisters bookstore. God Bless.

Good documentary. I must say, between the Military Commisions Act, the Patriot Act, anti-abortionism, and this anti-science bullshit, I'm really really glad not to be in the states these days.

There definitely seems to be an anti-intelectual movement in the states, check out these stats from here

58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.

42% of college graduates never read another book.

80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.

70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.

57% of new books are not read to completion.

I was SO shocked by these stats that I had to try and find out what the stats were like in Canada. I found this

This January 2005 survey of almost 2,000 Canadians 16 and older shows that a vast majority of Canadians - 87% - read a book for pleasure in the past year. Over half of Canadians read books for pleasure “every day” or “almost every day”. On average, Canadians indicated that they read 17 books for pleasure in 2004.

The Canadian Heritage survey indicates that 81% of Canadians bought a book for pleasure in the past year, while a recent report on book spending, based on a broad consumer spending survey, showed that 48% of Canadian households purchased a book in 2001 (see below). According to the Canadian Heritage survey, the strongest factors in books purchase decisions are topic or type of book, the author, and the price. On average, respondents spent $147 on books in 2004.

OK, so I know it's not nice to feel smug, but when the USA seems to be imploding, it's kind of hard not to. It really does worry me though- as they continue their descent into total ignorance, what will happen to the information infrastracture that is by and large in their country? Will they try and turn the internets into a police state too?

pffft. You know how we sell them at my bookstore? We read the damn books...or we listen to what our customers say. Customers love to talk about the books they read. 80% of selling books is telling people what they want to read.

This is a fun show. The Brits have all the best shows. Any more?