I was still thinking about the Grand Canyon issue this morning and saw a follow-up post up by RangerX. Both RangerX and National Parks Traveler, former NPS employees, seem confident that the "on the ground" discussion of the Grand Canyon's age isn't being slighted in favor of fundamentalist protectionism. Nonetheless, I suspect both probably share my unease as a federal employee that "direction" is a "top down" process and changes in administration personnel, including their personal beliefs can still filter down to the lowly GS-7 interpreter doing the talking to the public. So, I was gratified to see RangerX's comment:
I could be wrong about anything I've written; that's the basis of the liberal scientific method: We must all take seriously that any of us at any time could be wrong. Anything else is fundamentalism.
Not only is this a good attitude to have with specific reference to the Grand Canyon issue, it also happens to be a great philosophical statement in general (Ken Ham needs to think about this!).
There is still the issue of the creationist book remaining on sale at the park bookstore and promises from the NPS administration to review the situation that have yet to be completed. However, RangerX put an interesting spin on the sale of the book that makes me want to consider opposition to it the park context:
Finally, when people buy Grand Canyon: A Different View, they are supporting the Grand Canyon Association. The GCA in turn gives its proceeds to the NPS to be used to further its scientific educational mission. So by purchasing the book, creationists financially support the use of real science by interpretive park rangers. This is an irony worth preserving.
If the book is as hot an item as some creationists would leave us to believe, I'm thinking we ought to just stay quiet about the whole thing.