Jumping the gun on the Grand Canyon's age

[razzleccentric]

Fact Checking 101
How Skeptic magazine was Duped by an Environmental Activist Group

by Michael Shermer

In last week’s eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group. That press release, dated December 28, 2006, was headlined:

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

The first sentence of the release reads:

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.

Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false. Callers were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees — or by anyone else — to withhold scientific information, and all were referred to a statement by David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service as to the park’s official position. “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,” the document explains.

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.’

Read the rest of the article here.

* * *

Skeptic wasn't the only news outlet fooled by PEER's slightly misconstrued report. Maybe there are individual cases of rangers being pressured, but there's no evidence that there's an anti-science bias overall. There is definitely a young-earth creationist book about the Grand Canyon for sale in National Park bookstores, but as I recall the bookstores are actually owned by a private company (not the government) and have the right to sell anything they please.

When science is under fire on so many fronts, it's easy to take threat statements at face value. But it is also the duty of the true skeptic to get the facts and seek the truth from there - not the other way around. Kudos to Shermer for putting it right. :)

Comments

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

Thank you for pointing that one out. Dumb science is bad enough without people making false claims that it's even worse.

[altamaha.livejournal.com]

Whoa, that's embarrassing. But it seemed reasonable, given all the other silly crapola going on in today's anti-intellectual climate.

Good on 'em for admitting the mistake.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this. I'd also heard the claim that the park services were being pressured not to discuss the age of the Grand Canyon.