I mentioned my outrage yesterday about the National Park Service featuring a creationism text at the Grand Canyon’s bookstores. The LA Times picked up on the story today and added a few interesting details that I hadn’t heard.
Apparently the NPS move sparked considerable controversy in the scientific community. The American Geological Institute and seven geo-science organizations sent letters to the park and to agency officials calling for the book to be removed. The Times explained that, in an effort to “appease outraged Grand Canyon employees,” the book was moved from the natural sciences section to the inspirational reading section of park bookstores.
I guess that’s a good start, but I think it should be moved a little further. Such as out of the bookstore altogether.
The National Park Service still appears torn over the controversy. Deanne Adams, the Park Service’s chief of interpretation for the Pacific Region, said, “We struggle. Creationism versus science is a big issue at some places.”
Struggle or not, Adams phrased the controversy perfectly: creationism versus science. This is a public national park supported by the government, and as such, it should be neutral when it comes to religious matters. The park’s materials and staff should share scientifically correct information. Ultimately, the “creationism versus science” argument is irrelevant here.
A spokesperson for the Institute for Creation Research, which publishes the book sold at the Grand Canyon, said, “As long as all sides are presented, I don’t see any problem with it.”
I understand that this argument strikes many people as fair. The state-sponsored bookstore can feature books with real information alongside books with wrong information. This, according to the approach, strikes many as having a sense of balance.
But I think this is misguided. Scientific truths are not open to popularity contests. If the purpose of the bookstore is to offer visitors texts with accurate information that they can rely on, then creating a theological “balance” is an unattainable, and unnecessary, goal.
Consider a hypothetical: Let’s say another religious group believes space aliens carved the Grand Canyon with giant lasers as a way to provide a topographical map to their homeworld. The group sincerely believes this to be true, it is reflected in the group’s scriptural texts, and the group’s followers have published books with “proof” to bolster their claims.
Should the Grand Canyon bookstore sell this book too? I believe it should not. National parks should offer the public reliable information, not religious conjecture.
I don’t expect these books to be hidden from public view altogether. If a private business, whether it be Barnes & Noble or a religious bookstore, wants to sell books that offer “alternative” ideas about the age of the Grand Canyon, that’s up to them. I hope the books wouldn’t be purchased, but that’s me. That said, there’s a difference between private enterprise and state sponsorship.
The Times article also noted that there’s a legitimate scientific debate over the age of the Grand Canyon. That’s true. Some scientists believe the Colorado River carved the Canyon 5 million years ago, others say 6 million. Some believe the rock formations are 2 billion years old, others may say 2.5 billion.
But the fact that there’s some disagreement among scientists doesn’t mean the floor is now open to any and all ideas as equally compelling explanations. No matter how heated the debate between two scholars who want to argue between the 5 million and 6 million year old models, both believe the idea that the Canyon is 10,000 years old — or perhaps even younger — is utterly ridiculous.
For such arguments to share a shelf with legitimate research is an insult to science. For the government to promote such arguments in an official setting is an insult to the First Amendment.