Bush Admin Won't Let Grand Canyon Park Comment on Age of Canyon to Pander to Creationists

Might also be infringing on the separation of intelligence and stupidity...

I wasn't necessarily saying that the violation was not accepting the geologist's view of the Grand Canyon's creation. The inclusion of a book on religious views at a national park might be.

Forcing the park not to reveal what they belive to be true about the canyons age is a violation of free speech. Id has already been ruled by the courts to not be a science. SO if the book is posted there it should be labeled as religious views and not science views.

And it has zip to do with science consensus and more to do with science. If a theory is untestible or even more so has no method to prove it wrong, then it is not a science. Even gravity has a functional method to disprove it, even if you are probably not likly to do so. ID does not.

Noone really denys ID's right to exist as a faith theory a good bit of scienctists are not atheist but deist. They dont deny god, they just leave him out of the 3-d relm. It is impossible to do science if you assume there is an all powerfull being that may change your results at a whim. When calculating anything, there is one varible i can always feel confortable leaving out. GOD.
And b elive it or not that does not make me atheist.

Here's one at Beliefnet.

For anyone interested, here's an article which lays out the "young earth" view.

The link you provided talks merely about the book being offered for sale, not that the Bush Administration won't like the park comment on the age. Then at the end of that article you link, there's PEER again.

I can't say that this yet has a second source, it seems fishy.

RegBarc,

The fact that the mainstream media doesnt cover it, isnt affirmative reason to doubt it. Just a little research shows that everything PEER claims is factual accurate.

The story makes clear that it is several years old and this is a follow up on the Park Service's failure to keep its promise.

For further background, see, e.g.

Grand Canyon made by Noah's flood, book says
Geologists skewer park for selling creationism

For the right wing spin on the issue see, e.g. World net daily, that confirms the fact that Park service promised to do a formal review over 2 years ago.

For a more recent article:

A Country Ruled by Faith, Nov 16, 2006, The New York Review of Books

Since President Bush advocates the teaching of intelligent design, it is not surprising that in his administration, the National Park Service would authorize the sale of a book at the Grand Canyon claiming that the canyon was formed by Noah's Flood. A group of scientists protested this endorsement by the government of bogus science. In response to that, the Alliance Defense Fund, set up by James Dobson and other fundamentalists, threatened a lawsuit if the book was withdrawn from sale at the federal site. As other religious right figures chimed in, it was discovered that a draft guide for park employees stated that the canyon was not formed in the time period of the Flood; the guide was not released. A survey of Park Service employees in 2003 found that almost nine out of ten felt the scientific message of the Service was being skewed for political reasons.[24] That is the very definition of faith-based science.

What exactly seems fishy?

That the Bush administration would kow tow to the religous right?

That the Bush administration would suppress science to kow tow to the religious right?

Its a fact that the Park service sells a book pushing a religious theory of the formation of the park that runs directly counter to science.

Its a fact that scientific consensus is that grand canyon is at the very least 1000 times older than postulated in this religious book.

The gelogical formation of the grand canyon is directly relevant to running the park and that ignoring this on the basis of religion is inappropriate.

The Bush administration has censored the distribution of geological facts in order not to offend religous supporters and furthermore sells a false description of the formation of the canyon at stores owned and operated by the United States government.

Its the Bush administration that is fishy on this issue, not PEER. Perhaps you have seen the fish buper stickers?

Neither of your comments address my concern.

All I want is a second, verifiable source that states the Bush Administration won't let them talk about the age of the canyon.

If you can provide me with your drivel, fine. But that's not a second source. Either link up, or shut up.

Yeah, I guess I'm just not sure exactly what you're looking for. There is documentation at the site of the NPS guidelines on interpretation, the fact that the book is for sale in NPS bookstores is not in question, and the director of the NPS is a Bush administration appointee. The NPS agreed 3 years ago (at the request of the Grand Canyon NP) to conduct a review of the appropriateness of including the book in NP bookstores, the review is under the authority of the Director (Bush administration appointee), and has not occurred. Are you looking for a quote that says, for example "We here at the Bush administration forbid NPS employees from giving the age of the Grand Canyon because we want to pander to Creationists?" I mean, who'd be that dumb? I think if you're looking for an administration official to actually admit that they're pandering, you're not going to be satisfied. If you understand, though, that the Bush administration is facilitating the dissemination of a religious text included on the shelf of a National Park Service bookstore right next to the actual scientific texts, and that when challenged on whether or not putting the religious text right there with the scientific texts mightn't be a little misleading, they are dragging their feet for the past 3 years, it's pretty clear what's going on.

Maybe I'm just a little more skeptical than you are when it comes to the Bush administration, but I don't think it needs to take 3 years to figure out that the Creationist view of the age of the earth simply doesn't fit in with the scientific view, either on a bookshelf or in real life.

I don't argue that the book isn't for sale; it is.

I hold that there is no information other than from PEER (which is not a news organization) that states the park officials can't comment on the age of the canyon.

All I'm looking for is independent corroboration. An interest group stating that it is fact is not enough; I want sources that state this is the policy of the park service that they are not allowed to comment on it. Especially, I want corroboration that they were told by the Bush administration not to comment on it.

I want sources that state this is the policy of the park service that they are not allowed to comment on it. Especially, I want corroboration that they were told by the Bush administration not to comment on it. I don't know whether they're specifically prevented from commenting on it, but when the Bush administration prevents the publishing of guidelines to be used in responding to creationist zealots disrupting tours by claiming the canyon was formed by Noah's flood, you can be sure that the National Park Service is being used as a political football in an effort to cater to religious fundamentalists.

And, yet, nothing to support the headline of the seed.

Oh, yes. I agree with you there. I think I said elsewhere in this thread that the Park Service's official position is to stick to science. PEER reaches its conclusion by equating the administration's failure to provide any official guideline with muzzling rangers. In practice, the lack of guidelines makes an adequate response more difficult, but it certainly doesn't prohibit rangers from addressing the issue head on. They're not told not to, they're just met with resounding silence when they ask how they're to respond.

There's plenty of political gamesmanship going on here, but I don't think censorship is one of the ploys being used by the administration-- at least regarding this story.

If you're so concerned as to whether PEER just "made this up", why don't you just try contacting the park service yourself then? Ask them for a comment on the geological age of the Grand Canyon.

Here, I even looked up NPS Director Mary Bomar's contact information for you on nps.gov:

202-208-3818 / Mary_Bomar@nps.gov

If you're so concerned as to whether PEER just "made this up", why don't you just try contacting the park service yourself then? Ask them for a comment on the geological age of the Grand Canyon.

Because I'm not the author of the seed, sweetheart.

What difference does it make if you're the author of the seed or not? You are not happy with the seed, and you have the freedom and means to further corroborate or debunk it.

Do you honestly wait for "news organizations" to spoon feed you everything? I don't mean to be harsh, but while being free to criticise the article, you still have it in your power to contribute to it. That's why we're here.

No, because if someone makes a claim they are obligated to back it up when the claim is challenged. A consumer buys a Widget from Company A. The Widget is defective. The company does not tell him, "prove it's defective!"

If a claim is made, it has to be backed up, and Killfile did the right thing by e-mail the person in question.

That doesn't absolve your responsibility in the communication. You can both ask for sources and investigate yourself, if you're unhappy. News reporting is no longer a one way communication, as evidenced by this website.

If you're unhappy with the reporting, you can question it AND investigate it. It just so happens Killfile took your challenge and agreed to further investigate the story seeded. The format of Newsvine is a conversation. In a way, you're obligated to present opposing views or further information if you disagree with the content of a seed or think it inadequate in some way.

That doesn't absolve your responsibility in the communication. You can both ask for sources and investigate yourself, if you're unhappy. News reporting is no longer a one way communication, as evidenced by this website.

If you're unhappy with the reporting, you can question it AND investigate it.

If I was under a duty to do so, I'd do it. But when a story comes out claiming something, it must be verifiable. The journalist responsible for it must provide two sources to state something as far, and this story does not provide anything concrete whatever.

I agree with Booker on this issue, It is correct to question the seed, but why not do the research yourself to further strengthen YOUR point that the seed is questionable. Wouldn't it be better to say "The information your disseminating is simply not correct; here is why..." than to say "The information your disseminating may not be accurate."

I understand the desire to leave the burden of responsibility to author, however, it is no longer realistic. A person no longer has to be held up to the grand principles of journalism because although they may be discredited for sloppy work, they aren't exactly going to lose their job --there are no consequences to promote journalistic responsibility. Therefore, it is up to us the community to correct one another as well as investigate for ourselves what is true and what is not, we can no longer rely on Journalistic credential.

The mainstream media has contaminated itself with the sensationalistic slant of the corporate bottom line, it is up to us to call them out for not reporting reliable news and for getting it wrong. But how do we know that someone has gotten it wrong unless we investigate. Critical thinking is the new literacy and it involves personal responsibility at every level.

If I was under a duty to do so, I'd do it. But when a story comes out claiming something, it must be verifiable. The journalist responsible for it must provide two sources to state something as far, and this story does not provide anything concrete whatever.

Heh - for someone who once wrote and then defended a story blaming "environmentalism" for millions of deaths because of the actions of some environmentalists wrt the issue of DDT, you set a pretty high standard of "duty" for others, RegBarc. Not that it's not a commendable standard, or anything - I'm just sayin'...

;-)

Apples and oranges Brad, but whatever floats your boat.

It's all about the standards, Reg - either you think they're important for everyone, or you don't. If you apply one level of standard to a certain type of article (dare I say, one with which you disagree), and yet another level of standards to the articles you write, it could be taken as an indication that there is a certain, um, inconsistency in the way you approach articles and seeds on Newsvine.

But, hey, let's not let that interfere with our enjoyment of the article, nor with our debate. It's good to have perspective on the views of commenters, but it shouldn't detract from the original topic of this particular thread. Maybe someday someone will be interested in writing an article laying out a set of standards that could be applied equally to all articles and seeds as a means of judging their journalistic value. That would really allow a whole new set of comparisons and assessments to be made. Maybe you'd even be interested in penning such a piece, RegBarc. If you did, I'd sure be interested in reading it.

It's all about the standards, Reg - either you think they're important for everyone, or you don't. If you apply one level of standard to a certain type of article (dare I say, one with which you disagree), and yet another level of standards to the articles you write, it could be taken as an indication that there is a certain, um, inconsistency in the way you approach articles and seeds on Newsvine.

And in this case, we're talking about two completely different standards. Hence the apples and organges comment. ;)

That would really allow a whole new set of comparisons and assessments to be made. Maybe you'd even be interested in penning such a piece, RegBarc. If you did, I'd sure be interested in reading it.

Well, what I go by are the generally accepted standards of mainstream journalism (like what I mentioned a few thousand comments ago) about 2 sources to back up a claim as fact. I guess we could look at revising them based on the surge of internet journalism, but boy howdy, that'd be one hell of an article.

Well, what I go by are the generally accepted standards of mainstream journalism (like what I mentioned a few thousand comments ago) about 2 sources to back up a claim as fact.

Well, that seems like a pretty good start. I can see pretty well how that would apply to articles written by Newsvine users (apples, if you will), but would you also apply that standard to seeded articles (oranges), as well?

When you say that this is what you "go by," are you saying that you provide a second source for every claim made in every article you seed, or do you just provide those second sources for your headlines? Can you direct me to a few of those second source citations on some of the articles you've seeded?

I'm just trying to keep the apples and oranges straight here with respect to standards.

but would you also apply that standard to seeded articles (oranges), as well?

Headline specific, yes, I would challenge the seeder. If it's a problem with the source, I challenge the source and try to urge the seeder to correct if I find contradicting information.

When you say that this is what you "go by," are you saying that you provide a second source for every claim made in every article you seed, or do you just provide those second sources for your headlines?

If someone challenges something I put in an article or a seed, I'll gladly provide sources to back up the claim. The only time I put the cart before the horse is when I know I'm making a claim that sounds outrageous and I'll link the source right then and there. But if someone doesn't agree with a specific claim of mine, I welcome them to post a challenge and I'll respond in kind. That sort of goes without saying though, because I can't think of a time here on Newsvine where I've just ignored or derided someone for the challenge but not provided proof to back up my claim.

Grand Canyon: A Different View is still offered by the Grand Canyon Association Bookstore. At least they clearly identify it as a creationist text. I guess the real question is whether the Park Service can dictate what the bookstore offers on its shelves. If you believe PEER, they can. If it's an independent organization that doesn't recieve tax dollars, the question is muddier.

I note, however, that the official position of the Park Service support good old regular science. See page six of the Park Service's guide to the North Rim [pdf file].

And here I thought it was created by his arch-enemy "the fork" when it attempted to entangle him.

On another note things like the "Flying Spaghette Monster" are why I love the internet.

you forgot to show your respect. I shall do it for us three.

"RAmen".

From what I understand, it only takes, like, a couple thousand years to squeeze a rain forest so hard it turns into a petroleum reserve and then bury it a half-mile deep under the Arctic.

It's also ironic that PEER is trying to protect the first amendment (for geologists) by trying to violate it (for creationists). Just a thought... allow both voices and let them stand on their own merit. Isn't that what a free society is all about?

allow both voices and let them stand on their own merit

If that were the case, the creationist book would certainly be available at the canyon: in the lavatories for paper.

Anyone who believes the canyon was formed in a single catastrophic event is on the same intellectual plane as a flat-earther and deserves exactly the same level of respect.

Brad: But that's only if you have the power of God's love.

1. Grow rainforests.
2. Create cataclysmic landslide.
3. Bake until black and slimy.
4. Tuck under Arctic.
5. Repeat steps 1-4.

Great job running this down. We dogged few devotees to the myth of empiricism may yet win the day...

Don't you think that forcing this scientific nonsense down our throats will have a negative impact?

If the majority of people still believed this way we would be teaching our children that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that gravity was magic. Yes science has been wrong, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it actually encourages efforts to prove theories incorrect.

But what does the belief that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood have to with science? What does the bible have to do with science for that matter? When that book was "peer reviewed" many gospels and testaments were thrown out for reasons other than their factual basis.

Jesus, GoReporter, go read a book for God's sake.

Why should individuals be subjected to a political, religious, scientific argument while trying to enjoy a beautiful landscape? They're not if they don't want to be. Last time I went to the Grand Canyon, I don't remember being forced to take an informational tour. I just parked my car and enjoyed the view.

Many people do not believe in the unproven theories on the age of the earth. Many people are idiots, but it doesn't have anything to do with the age of the earth. I'm interested to hear your position regarding the earth's "real" age, and why you find the science surrounding the age of the earth "unproven." Care to elaborate?

Science has been wrong so many times, they used to be the ones who called the earth flat, and got the whole earth revolves around the sun thing all wrong, remember? I know the whole argument, so don't be bringing all the old religious garbage up again, please. I'm sorry, but I have to. They're also the ones who corrected their own mistakes, while religion was still busy burning heretics for failing to believe in the wrong funny sky fairy. Here's a thought for you, modern science is really only a couple of hundred years old-- in that time science has made plenty of strides, and improved the human lot exponentially more than all the religious belief in all the societies of all human beings in all previous time. But hey, don't let that get in the way of vilifying science. You should expect by now that every time you bring up this hoary, overused complaint against science, you will be refuted.

Leave God in our hearts, and keep the scientists who practice their craft with religious fervor, out of our parks! I'd be happy to leave God in your heart if you and your ilk didn't constantly take him out to polish him up and compare him to science. When I want to be informed, I'll go with the evidence. Don't whine at me because there's no evidence for God. When you have some, maybe you can convince the park rangers to talk about it. In the meantime, if I want to know how the canyon formed, I'd like to get the current best estimate, not some ancient shepherd's tale.

Don't you think that forcing this scientific nonsense down our throats will have a negative impact? Frankly, I don't care. Don't you think that forcing this religious nonsense down our throats will have a negative impact?

you are telling people who believe otherwise that their opinions don't matter. Believe what you want to believe, but don't call it truth. Science is not a democracy. Evidence matters. Your opinion doesn't.

Science has been wrong so many times, they used to be the ones who called the earth flat, and got the whole earth revolves around the sun thing all wrong, remember?

I don't think this is close to accurate. GoReporter, can you back up your claim that it was science who established the belief that the earth is flat?

Can you back up your second claim, about getting the question of what revolves around what? I don't believe science ever got that wrong. In fact, any real scientist who is speaking accurately (rather than using practical simplifications) would say neither the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth. They would say something like this (found here):

both revolve around the center of mass of the Earth-Sun system (or, rather, they both take paths through space defined by the various forces -- primarily gravity -- exerted on them by every other body in the universe, which you can conveniently reduce to their mutual interaction as them revolving around the common center of mass as a simple approximation); while that may be within the Sun itself, its really no less correct to say that theSun revolves around the Earth than vice versa

BTW, GoReporter, you seem pretty quick to dismiss science. It's interesting that your use of and actually the very existence of this website and your own website entirely depend on it.

They're not if they don't want to be. Last time I went to the Grand Canyon, I don't remember being forced to take an informational tour. I just parked my car and enjoyed the view.

Well good, then there's no problem and this article must be wrong - as Andy pointed out.

Here's a thought for you, modern science is really only a couple of hundred years old

Here's a thought for you, modern religion is only a few hundred years old as well. Perhaps you should try to work with religious people instead of being so one-sided.

Evidence matters. Your opinion doesn't.

Hmmm, I see.

if God has anything to do with this story, it's only to provide further brilliant metaphors for the entire bush administration. rocks, holes, dried-up soil and an ethnocentric ark. just brilliant. good stuff.

Note to firsty:

As I write this, I'm watching a memorial service for President Gerald Ford - it is a religious service, with prayers calling for God to receive him through Jesus Christ. Religion is part of the fabric of America - from sea to shining sea. Seems to me, that religion has everything to do with everything. Science should be a help to humanity, not a hindrance to worship. Spirituality is more important than the age of a rock. If knowing the age of a rock provides a cure for what ails us, then make a pill - but until it does - it is just meaningless information that few people care about.

Well good, then there's no problem and this article must be wrong - as Andy pointed out. I don't have a problem with Andy. I have a problem with you, and your kneejerk insertion of "Godless heathens are ruining America!" schtick that you trot out in every one of these types of articles. Or did I get you wrong when you stated that we shouldn't be "forcing" people to hear science, scientists are wrong, science is untrustworthy, and keep science out of our national parks?

Here's a thought for you, modern religion is only a few hundred years old as well. I'd be willing to bet that I know a hell of a lot more about your religion than you do. And certainly more about your religion than you know about science. "Modern" religion isn't so far from ancient religion, despite what you may want to believe. Or are you one of those loose-leaf Bible Christians?

Hmmm, I see. Somehow I doubt it, or you wouldn't have commited the fallacy of popularity in arguing against science.

Religion is part of the fabric of America - from sea to shining sea. Religion is a part of America as a culture specifically because religion is NOT a part of America as a form of government.

Science should be a help to humanity, not a hindrance to worship. It's only a hindrance to worship when folks like yourself try to replace science with worship. Keep your religion out of my science. Like I said, you want to keep God in your heart, great! Keep him in your heart, and quit taking him out, polishing him up, and comparing him to science.

Spirituality is more important than the age of a rock. No, it's not.

it is just meaningless information that few people care about. They usually don't care about it until they're hooked up to tubes and monitors in a hospital room praying to God to "save them", while doctors use the work of science to try to fulfill that prayer. You just go on kidding yourself that science doesn't matter. Leave all that hard stuff, like rational thought, to those godless scientists.

Science should be a help to humanity, not a hindrance to worship.

I just threw up in my mouth. I think it should be the other way around. Religion should be a help to humanity, not a hinderance to science.

Don't you think that forcing this scientific nonsense down our throats

gogo gets funnier and funnier the further down the pathway toward complete and total delusion she goes.

it's almost embarrassing to watch.

As a scientist, I'm offended, GoReporter. I can demonstrate evolution in a laboratory. I have been following the research on this since the early 70s, and you simply have not been paying attention.

Recently, I participated in a lengthy course (about 9 months) on the science - religion - creation - intelligent design debates - I've heard every argument university professors of science could come up with, participated in discussions involving the Pennsylvania school district trial, and read numerous books on these topics - and after all that, I have not budged an inch, maybe half an inch. I have read and studied what the geologists/scientists/evolutionists/Darwinists are saying, and have concluded it is unreasonable when compared to what their opposition is saying - which is also based on scientific methods. I am not willing to get into another debate. There are geologists/scientists who do not believe in evolution who have a much more realistic explanation for the age of the earth. Now, because I don't agree with you - you'll call me names. That's too bad, because all that does is reinforce my position.

I've heard it all, and it all boils down to this: Reasonably intelligent people will believe only what they have read or studied, and once their belief system has been established (as in 'once someone believes in evolution' or 'once someone believes in the billions of years theory), it is impossible to change their mind unless they are willing to read and study what the opposition is saying.

Byronsnake,

If you can demonstrate evolution in your laboratory - you need to get in touch with the people at the Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org/ --they would be very interested. They're the intelligent design/creationist people. They will be very interested in your research. Scientists have been trying, without success, to reproduce evolution ever since Darwin invented it.

I was simply observing that our military, our government, was performing a religious Christian service for an American president. That's pretty amazing. Amazing because so many non-Christians believe in the pseudo separation of church and state - there is no such thing - there is only freedom of religion.

I don't know what the services would be like for a non-Christian - I have never seen such a service performed by our government, have you?

I was simply stating that religion has everything to do with everything.

For the sake of sweet @!$%#! You know what's great about faith? It allows you to believe with your heart what your mind tells you is otherwise. God made man from dust? Sure. Noah rounded up two of every animal alive and stuck them on a boat? Okay. Jonah survives after getting swallowed into the stomach of a giant fish? That doesn't make a lick of sense on any damned level but -- @!$%# it -- why not? Faith doesn't bend to logic and logic should never have to bend to faith. If you truly believe in something -- if you have an absolute, passionate, faith -- it shouldn't matter to you what science says and you shouldn't need to bend over backwards trying to explain it away. If something as rudimentary as geology threatens to quash your religious beliefs I question whether you have any real faith to begin with...

I really think that when you say I have read and studied what the geologists/scientists/evolutionists/Darwinists are saying, and have concluded it is unreasonable when compared to what their opposition is saying - which is also based on scientific methods, you highlight your ignorance. Creationism is based on "God did it" and Intelligent Design is based on the fallacious argumentum ignorantum (argument from ignorance). Claiming that they're based on "scientific methods" just highlights that you don't know what the scientific method is. And claiming that they're "more reasonable" than the Theory of Evolution simply suggests that you don't understand the meaning of the term "reasonable."

As far as the Discovery Institute being "interested" in evidence for evolution, the irony of the statement eludes you, I'm sure. Every time the evolution/creation argument surfaces, scientific support for evolution is brought up and linked to, and every time religious ideologues use weasel words to try to define it as outside the bounds of the argument, but fail to offer anything to support their own position. The Theory of Evolution has a lot more going for it than any of the alternatives. But if you prefer your ignorance, you're welcome to it. Just don't try to legislate it being taught as fact.

Regarding your claim that there is no such thing as the separation between church and state, it comes as no surprise that you would feel that way. Someone who trumpets their own ignorance about evolution certainly can't be expected to avoid trumpeting their own ignorance about American history and Constitutional Law.

I don't know what the services would be like for a non-Christian - I have never seen such a service performed by our government, have you? Awww, that's just because the government hides all the war-dead from the prying eyes of the public. You shouldn't let that convince you that the government doesn't perform services for other faiths. Or are you really arguing that you don't believe anything you haven't personally witnessed?

gogo

Recently, I participated in a lengthy course (about 9 months) on the science - religion - creation - intelligent design debates

i am very interested in the course you participated in.. where can i find more information regarding the content , requirements, and faculty. im also interested in the accreditation.

thanks

If you can demonstrate evolution in your laboratory - you need to get in touch with the people at the Discovery Institute

Nahhh... they can go to Wikipedia, just like everybody else.

GoReporter, I beg to differ. I don't care what you've done, you have not read the research. You have at best the tiniest grain of an idea of what you are talking about. I don't think you would accept someone telling you what The Holy Bible means if you knew they had never read it.

In brief, the scientific method is a procedure for studying reality. It has nothing to do with faith (and salvation is by faith). The scientific method has nothing to do with faith, but with observing phenomena and testing hypotheses. Science hasn't been able to demonstrate the existence of God, and I don't expect it ever will. The inability of science to demonstrate the existence of God doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Similarly, you cannot believe away science. You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it real. If I call my dog's tail a leg, he still has four legs, not five. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Start with the Pew Research Center's Climate 101. Next, read 2002 EPA Climate Report. The bibliography for that one starts on page 256 and runs for seven pages. That is the barest beginning of what you need to read to understand the scientific method and what it means.

By the way, demonstrating natural selection, the basis for evolution, in a laboratory is trivial. Let hamsters breed and separate the largest and smallest in each litter, and only allow each size to breed separately. In a few generations, you'll have two stains that naturally reproduce different sizes. The change in genes in some species due to global warming has been and continues to be demonstrated. Other species don't adapt as well and some of these will become extinct.

GoReporter, you haven't done your homework. Get started. You'll be busy for a while.

There is a great experiment done on Foxes, where they were bred for "kindness". The end result of only breeding these foxes, was a dog that looked like a border collie. I can't recall where I read that exactly, but I think it may have been in a Dawkins book.

Tame Silver Fox. There's a link to a good New York Times article at the bottom.

By the way, demonstrating natural selection, the basis for evolution, in a laboratory is trivial. Let hamsters breed and separate the largest and smallest in each litter, and only allow each size to breed separately. In a few generations, you'll have two stains that naturally reproduce different sizes. The change in genes in some species due to global warming has been and continues to be demonstrated. Other species don't adapt as well and some of these will become extinct.

Ah, but in the end you still have a hamster. So I was right, you have nothing new.

Ah, but in the end you still have a hamster. So I was right, you have nothing new.

Ah, so you respond by ignoring the preponderance of evidence. I was right, you're willfully ignorant.

You'll want to learn a whole lot more about the scientific method before you continue arguing, dear. That is, if you want asnyone to take you seriously.

Scientists have been trying to reproduce evolution in the laboratory and have been unsuccessful. There is a simple, but lengthy and expensive experiment they can perform on a beetle, but they are unwilling to do this. Why?

but iar-

learning about the scientific method might bring into question all the things my parents taught me are true and may well lead to me questioning my belief in GOD!!!!!!

without god and the promise of heaven, i'll have to be cognizant of the notion that i might indeed die one day.. and then.. nothing

i just can't handle the truth!!!!!!!!!!

GoReporter,

Because the overwhelming amount of evidence converging on the truth of the current theory of evolution makes going to the expense and trouble completely redundant? Why don't you go ahead and tell us what this simple experiment consists of? Feel free to explain why this experiment is necessary in the face of confirming evidence coming from multiple disciplines. And then explain why the Discovery Institute, which would stand to gain a fantastic amount of credibility by disproving current theory, is hesitant to conduct the experiment itself-- you know, to sort of prove their point....

Given the overwhelming evidence (and I'll simply repost Wikipedia's table of contents for that article, since you haven't read it, but space prohibits me from simply cutting and pasting the entire article), maybe you'd like to tell us what this compelling evidence of yours consists of, that overrides the entirety of the case for the current theory of evolution?

Contents
[hide]

* 1 Evidence from palaeontology
1.1 Fossil records
1.1.1 Extent of the Fossil Record
1.2 Evolution of the horse
1.3 Limitations
* 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.1.1 Pentadactyl limb
2.1.2 Insect mouthparts
2.2 Analogous structures and convergent evolution
2.3 Vestigial organs
* 3 Evidence from geographical distribution
3.1 Continental distribution
3.2 Explanation
3.3 Evidence for migration and isolation
3.4 Continental drift
3.5 Oceanic island distribution
* 4 Evidence from comparative embryology
* 5 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
5.1 Evolution of widely distributed proteins and molecules
* 6 Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
* 7 Evidence from studies of complex iteration
* 8 Evidence from speciation
8.1 Hawthorn fly
* 9 References
* 10 External links

I'll be happy to wait, while you gather your thoughts, and present a compelling argument.

And, BTW, this statement: Scientists have been trying to reproduce evolution in the laboratory and have been unsuccessful is complete horse@!$%#, as has been shown numerous times in this thread alone. I suggest you define your terms so that we'll know why you object to current levels of proof.

Obviously, you have not kept yourself up to date on the evolution - intelligent design debate. After being immersed in it for 9 months, I have no desire to discuss it any further. I have learned that there is nothing, and I mean nothing, I could say to you or people like you that would change your mind. I have no desire to update you, educate you, or otherwise communicate with you on the subject of evolution, especially since you haven't bothered to stay current on the topic.

Has the debate changed appreciably since Dover? Where are the new ID papers? What about the new ID research? Has there been any new formulation of the ID position?

Obviously, you have not kept yourself up to date on the evolution - intelligent design debate. I think... No, I take that back-- I know I'm a hell of a lot more up to date on it than you are. After all, I'm not the one running away from a discussion of it.

After being immersed in it for 9 months, I have no desire to discuss it any further. Or, and a hell of a lot more likely, you can't hold your own in an intellectual discussion of the subject, and prefer to just throw out baseless assertions, then beat a hasty retreat when called out for it. Either you can back your assertions up, or you can't. If you want to walk away from the discussion with nothing but an excuse, we'll all have to assume that it's the latter-- inability to argue your position.

I have learned that there is nothing, and I mean nothing, I could say to you or people like you that would change your mind. Funny, "we" feel exactly the same way about you. But here's the difference-- we're still willing to talk about it, just in case you actually present an argument worth considering. You creationists, on the other hand, typically run away when asked hard questions. But then, that would be typical of the philosophical underpinnings of creationism and intelligent design, wouldn't it? When the going gets tough, the IDer throws up his hands and says "God must have done it." If at the difficult junctures of your type of "scientific" research the most you can do is give up investigation, why wouldn't we expect you to do the same thing in every other sphere of your life?

I have no desire to update you, educate you, or otherwise communicate with you on the subject of evolution, especially since you haven't bothered to stay current on the topic. Yes, yes. Keep right on telling yourself that it's all about how uneducated I am. I'm sure you're convincing the choir, but what else is new?

I'll be waiting, if you have anything substantive to say. Please make it more compelling than simple gradeschool rhetorical tricks.

I'm glad you're willing to talk about it, really I am, but due to the nature or attitude of your replies, I'm certain your motivation is purely hateful, and not at all open minded. This article is not about evolution - perhaps someday when I'm in the mood, I'll write an another breathtaking article about the problem with evolution. Don't hold your breath.

GoReporter,

My guess is that a bigger part of you backing away at this point is that you feel that this has become more of a personal attack on you.

I'm glad you're willing to talk about it, really I am, but due to the nature or attitude of your replies, I'm certain your motivation is purely hateful, and not at all open minded.

I'm probably not going out on a limb to say that there is something to that. The problem is that, from an outside observer's standpoint (mine), you have provoked this attack by attacking questions with empty rhetoric and claims that you possess evidence to combat them, yet you refuse to provide it. I assure you, you'll win no arguments or fans that way.

If you really have something to say on the subject, say it. If you have nothing and merely want to avoid trotting your ignorance out for all to see, thus exposing your bluff, just let it go. I for one will not be reading your treatise in a later article. I will not be party to adding comments that such flame-bait will assuredly bring. I still cannot tell if you really believe all you have to say because you just continue to fan the flames wherever you go instead of unleashing the wealth of information supposedly at your disposal.

I believe the phrase, '@!$%# or get off the pot' applies here.

For a moment there I thought you were going to be kind. Like I said, don't hold your breath.

I'm glad you're willing to talk about it, really I am, but due to the nature or attitude of your replies, I'm certain your motivation is purely hateful, and not at all open minded. Well, I can truthfully say that I feel the same way about most of the articles you write, but that's sort of beside the point, isn't it? I mean, I know pretty much from the git-go that I'm not going to be changing your mind, you've said as much before I ever started responding to your sweeping assertions. I've already stated why I'm interested in debating you, and it has nothing to do with hating you, You're not important enough to me to hate, you're just somebody on the other side of my computer screen making grandiose claims and sweeping assertions about something I happen to be interested in. You set yourself up as the authority, and I want to know if it's true or just hot air. If you're not willing to play the game after setting up the rules, I'm forced to conclude it's just hot air. So what's it to be-- will you back up your claims, or run away?

This article is not about evolution Actually, it is. You can't separate the question of evolution from articles where creationism is talked about because creationism defines itself in opposition to evolution. So, quit weaseling. Put up or shut up.

someday when I'm in the mood, I'll write an [sic] another breathtaking article about the problem with evolution. Don't hold your breath. You can be quite sure I won't.

For a moment there I thought you were going to be kind. This from the lady who lauds Ann Coulter, thinks that anyone left of center is a "parrot for left wing propaganda" and has "lost [his] soul", "the Democrats" hurt the war efforts, ad nauseum... my irony meter is pegged. Woman, if kindness is important to you, maybe you should put a governor on that ad hominem engine of yours. Life is a mirror-- it reflects back the ugly parts of yourself. Treat people poorly and they respond in kind.

I have sympathy for you, but no kindness for your outrageous and untrue generalizations.

Again, anytime you want to back up your statements in plain discussion, I'll be more than happy to oblige. I promise I won't make you cry. It's a standing offer-- you pit your 9 months of extensive training regarding evolution/creationism against my passing interest in the subject. I'll even tie my shoelaces together, to even the odds. Here's your chance to convince any fence-sitting spectators, regardless of whether you convince me. What do you say?

Obleo

Your points may be valid but your language is unnecessary and unacceptable. Drop the profanity, it demeans your argument and the debate.

Moon-

ive been reading your posts and comments and you are without a doubt going to be a huge asset to this community.

in defense of Obleo.. you might want to have a long hard look at the ramblings of goreporter.. once you do you might see why she has exasperated a good many fine people into cursing fits.

im not one who uses foul language often, but gogo can bring out the worst in people.

if you don't like bad language, you'll find that in your account settings you can filter profanity.

:-)

I don't want to filter profantiy; I'm not a prude, nor do I think there is no place for profanity here. It's context that counts. Does the use of it serve a purpose in supporting an argument or illuminating an informative article? Obleo's usage is simply as an expletive which has no place in civilized discussion, IMHO.

I have read a number of goreporter's posts here and elsewhere. I agree that it is maddening, but you are not going to persuade anyone by swearing at them -- you just reduce the quality and credibility of your discussion and invite retaliation. Do we want this to become a swearing match?

Thank you for the complement, btw. I blush easily...

hehe-

i think it's been proven time and time again that no one is going to change gogo's opinion about anything anyway. her "purpose" here is to make us smarter or die trying.. i personally don't know how she can possible handle the beatings she gets here, but she keeps showing up to the fight unarmed and insists on jumping in.. some people thrive on abuse i suppose.

and if a bad word or two makes someone handle the stress she produces just a little easier, i'm all for it.

i look forward to seeing you around!

Gogo (apparently that's your nickname now?)

It's all hunky-dorey that you've taken the time and effort to immerse yourself in the evolution-ID debate. But, I hate to inform you that the "debate" very simply becomes "no debate" when you learn the definition of scientific theory.

I don't need your infinite wisdom that undermines evolution. I just need you to tell me one thing:

Give me a hypothetical set of physical evidence that can disprove intelligent design.

If you can do that, you'll have gained a great deal of my intellectual respect, as you'll be the first to do so in my experience, and possibly in recorded history.

If you wish me to do the same for the modern theory of evolution, that's easy: If you find a fossil rabbit in a pristine rock layer dating to the Precambrian, you'll have blown the modern theory of evolution out of the water.

Give me an actual response to my question, and you'll have done ten times more for your (and ID's) credibility than the totality of your comments here.

Jack-

Give me a hypothetical set of physical evidence that can disprove intelligent design.

a fine question.. but don't expect an answer.

the answers to the cold hard questions never come.

it's all about spout and run.

sorry to be the bearer of such news.

I don't expect an answer, as I've asked this many times to many people, and have been given no answers yet.

But, Gogo's arrogance and nose-thumbing may be justified, you never know.

Go ahead and challenge them to provide proof that they're not allowed to comment.

The foaming-at-the-mouth Bush haters will jump all over you. Possibly call you genocidal in the process.

Excellent observation, Tyson. Is the website note an oversight, or evidence that the article is inaccurate? Either way, thanks for pointing it out. I'd still like to know if anyone can get an answer directly from NPS on this... surely if they are allowed to officially comment on the geological age of the canyon, it should be trivial to get a statement from them?

RegBarc, that's getting a bit inflammatory, sweetheart.

Clarification:

They leave the line out in quoting it to support their argument. They include the full text of order 8.4.2 at the end of the article.

The book is entitled: "Grand Canyon: A Different View". The key word here is different. Not "official", not "the accepted view" but different. I can't see any proof that this is now the view of the National Park Service. As I pointed out here , the website for the NPS still seems to be using the accepted age of the canyon according to science.

Don't get me wrong here, I hate Bush as much as the next guy, and his use/abuse of religion to get/stay elected I find personally offensive (being a religious person myself), but this article just doesn't offer proof of a policy change in what rangers are telling park guests.

You are, frankly, not worth it.

...and neither are you.

Sorry, did you say something?

Kidding... great points. ;)