Creationism and the National Park Service - A Follow-Up (UPDATED 3:32 EST)

Agreed, FDBryant. No substitute for face-time -- gotta read that body language, and all.

You could just call and speak to a Park Service employee in interpretation: (928) 638-7888 (e-mail link found on this page as well). Frankly, I think the first sentence on the Park's home page goes a long way to diminishing PEER's claim (emphasis mine):

The Grand Canyon is more than a great chasm carved over millennia through the rocks of the Colorado Plateau.

Also, as if to be even more blunt, this is from the FAQ on the same site:

How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young.

Lastly, the NPS is a fair bit more independent of the Executive than most seem to be willing to give it credit for. The science and interpretation of each park isn't generally up to whomever sits in the Oval Office. I appreciate Killfile's follow up on this, but this whole story shows more of the people's willingness to believe sensational claims than look for their own answers.

isn't. ;)

I'm no advocate for mixing the two at all. I think any religious material belongs in the mythic category, not science. But because myth in many quarters has somehow been equivalenced to fiction, or even untruth, (1) it feels prejorative those who base their decision-making and actions on it (as is perfectly within their right and not necessarily a bad idea in many instances), which in turn leads to futile efforts to equivalence it to science and (2) it is often denigrated by those whose mythology base -- and we all have one -- is inclusive of the primacy of "empricism" in certain domains of understanding about the universe (which group includes me, btw -- full disclosure).

One reason for, or aspect, of this is a confusion about the distinctions between myth and science. They each are addressing fundamentally different types of questions, it seems to me. Science is mostly addressing questions of "how" something came about or works the way it does. Myth (including religion) is really more about "why" it happens, in the sense of motivation or purpose, as opposed to causality, usually with respect to deriving meaning from events (rather than knowledge of their mechanics) and guidance as to how to respond.

To be sure there is some overlap in these, but most of the time the conflicts are reconcilable, at least so I've found.

Moon, I appreciate your sophisticated understanding of myth, and it's role / function in human understanding and decision-making, and also your willingness to develop a clear understanding of your own "mythological base" and its relation to your high opinion of "empiricism" and non-mythological modes of understanding.

[As an evangelical Christian who accepts--and even embraces--the science of evolution, this comes up for me in how to frame the human story for my children, especially when they will meet people they love (in our congregation and in our family) who will claim that the findings of science are opposed to faithfulness to our religious community and traditions.]

I am a little uncomfortable, however, with the oh-so-neat framing of all religious content as mythological. I have heard this fairly often, usually proclaimed by scientists (e.g. Stephen J. Gould), but my own religious community (while it appreciates the work of Walter Wink and many others in this area) is certainly interested in more than the mythological interpretive framework that we use. (We leave that preoccupation up to those theologically "liberal" denominations that don't really believe what they preach. . . . ) [HYPERBOLE--please don't flame me ;)]

Sometimes living together involves tolerating people who have what we consider to be irrational opinions on what we think should be matters of fact. Those people may not share our reasoning, or [surprise!] we may not know all the facts, but we can still find a way to build a society together. Or at least that's the myth that I would like to pursue. . . .

Sometimes living together involves tolerating people who have what we consider to be irrational opinions

That's my thinking, agree to disagree. There are plenty of things we can agree on like the Ten Commandments, stop there.

Sometimes living together involves tolerating people who have what we consider to be irrational opinions

That's my thinking, agree to disagree. There are plenty of things we can agree on like the Ten Commandments, stop there.

Ha! A sly example! Woud it were so easy!

I wish there were a simple list of precepts that did in fact have legitimacy for lawmaking in the U.S. I am not of the camp that thinks that such legitimacy is imported directly to the government from the ethical & religious convictions of the Founding Fathers, so that the 10 Commandments have a special status to inform U.S. law. Nor do I think that reference to that very special (divinely inspired, IMHO) list does well as a shorthand for the common human & democratic values that we hope we share, much as many of us would like to use it that way. (C.S. Lewis used the term Tao, or "way," to refer to this idea in Mere Christianity.)

I was thinking more in terms of the Bill of Rights, though developing some way of working with each others' moral and ethical convictions for the purpose of building a civil civic society (whether or not they are founded on religious teaching) is certainly part of the challenge, both for the U.S. government and for individual religious and ethical communities. Sometimes the strategy will be "fight them tooth and nail," but not always, and even then we need to have ground rules in place (like no bombing each other) which can be more challenging to establish than we might wish.

"Why can't we all get along?" I think we can, but we are still working on it. . . .

I just want to talk about the Ten Commandments for one moment. The one that says "Thou shalt not kill." I just want to bring up the fact that so many people have died in the name of Christianity, since the crusades, the Holocaust, and manifest destiny. Now that's what I call irony. Too bad we can't edit it.

Also, I don't believe that everyone agrees with the Ten Commandments, especially other religions. But most religions grasp the same ideas. But there are differences in western and eastern philosophy that I don't really want to delve into right now. I once was listening to this man who said, "Hinduism shouldn't really be considered a religion because it is so different in it's beliefs compared to Christianity. They are seeking a greater conciousness, while we go to Church every Sunday to learn about the Bible." That's one example

Alex, I certainly agree that there are important differences between religions, and that it is too easy to fail to make distinctions when generalizing about "religion." It is also easy to make ham-fisted stereotypical distinctions. Appreciating different cultures, while maintaining a passionate connection to one's own, is a difficult thing.

I also want to point out (without denying the failures and culpabilities of Christians) that the meme "so many people have died in the name of Christianity" is also an easy bandwagon to jump on without regard to the complexity of such a claim or the nature of the facts that may or may not match the claim. (Much like the PEER headline that started this conversation.)

Please let's not go down this road on yet another article.

Lets just talk about PEER, Killfiles follow up, or, at the very least, the Canyon! Please.

Point taken. :)

the meme "so many people have died in the name of Christianity" is also an easy bandwagon to jump on without regard to the complexity of such a claim or the nature of the facts that may or may not match the claim.

Although we are going a little off topic from the article, thanks for shedding some light on my comment. You are right, the situation is a little more complicated than I have mentioned. I have only drifted over the surface with my statement. I am just saying there are many religions that are more peaceful than Christianity.

final cut,

I agree. I went to the canyon as an 8 year old and was awed by it, but then I was awed by the whole trip -- one of those classic, summer long road trips around the west.

In August of last year I took my 16 year old daughter and went again with my sister. We met my older brother and his two kids there and hiked the canyon, down the Kaibab trail. There is nothing to compare it with; it defies words.

It's enormity cannot be captured on film and is definitely worth seeing.