The Grand Canyon: Created by Noah's Flood?

Washington, Jan. 12—(RNS) Traditional scientists and Christian creationists have lined up on either side of a dispute over sales of a new book at Grand Canyon National Park that claims the canyon dates to the biblical flood of Genesis rather than millions of years ago.

The presidents of such organizations as the American Geological Institute and the American Institute of Biological Sciences have written or signed letters to the park's superintendent expressing concerns that the book's presence could leave visitors with the impression that it is endorsed by the National Park Service.

Answers in Genesis, a ministry whose president wrote an essay in the book, is urging its supporters to ask park service officials to permit "Grand Canyon: A Different View" to remain on the shelves of the park's three bookstores.

The debate has reached the point that a Washington policy office of the National Park Service is considering how to handle the matter, officials said. "They sent the book in here and we're looking at it with our attorneys to try to get a policy statement out," said David Barna, spokesman for the National Park Service. "It's not so much about this book as it is about what we do with the other views of the way geologic features in parks were created."

The difference between the views of some groups is--literally--millions of years apart. "The Grand Canyon was formed millions of years ago," said William Ausich, president of the Paleontological Society, who signed a letter along with presidents of six other scientific organizations. "It is the job of the National Park Service to present the best scientific information possible to the public and the book is complete pseudoscience."

Mark Looy, vice president of Answers in Genesis, said four staff members of his organization contributed essays to the book and believe the canyon is much newer. "The canyon was formed as a result of the aftereffects of Noah's flood, a worldwide global flood," he said. "Most of the canyon was formed by a lot of water over a relatively short period of time."

His organization, based in the Cincinnati suburb of Florence, Ky., has raised $10.5 million toward the construction of a Creation Museum.

The book, compiled by Tom Vail, features colorful photographs of the canyon and essays reflecting a creationist's view of its development. "For years, as a Colorado River guide I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time scale of millions of years," writes Vail on the Web site of his Phoenix-based Canyon Ministries about the book. "Then I met the Lord. Now, I have `a different view' of the canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."

Barna, of the park service, said interpreters who guide visitors through the park are aware there are different viewpoints on the canyon's development. "They're instructed in the current scientific and geological explanation, which means very, very old, as in hundreds of millions of years," he said. "I'm certain that park interpretative rangers get stopped frequently by people who believe the creationist view or maybe the Native American view. ... Our explanation is that we recognize that there are a variety of opinions."

Barna expects the books will remain in place. "The superintendent just reordered additional copies," he said.

A Washington-based group called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has complained not only about the book but about the Grand Canyon National Park's decisions concerning plaques featuring biblical verses. The plaques, which date to the 1960s, were removed last summer after a park superintendent feared they were going to prompt a suit, Barna said. The superintendent was overruled by Park Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy, who apologized to the religious organization that donated the plaques and had them restored pending a review of the matter by the Justice Department.

The public employees group also is concerned about park service plans to alter a video that airs in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial featuring demonstrations held there over the years. Conservative groups, including the Traditional Values Coalition, have expressed concern that footage on the video features abortion rights and gay rights groups. "The Bush administration appears to be sponsoring a program of faith-based parks," said Jeff Ruch, the employee organization's executive director, in a recent statement.

Barna said demonstrations dealing with conservative causes have tended to be in front of the Capitol rather than the Lincoln Memorial. He said the revised video will not delete scenes of liberal groups, but could include more conservative groups such as Promise Keepers and footage of veterans and presidential ceremonies at the memorial.

So you're the guy the Smitsonian wrote this letter to.

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the "ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.

B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,
Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities

Ive been there, that tiny little river in the middle of the bottom(if you can see it at all) did not make that great canyon - it was made by a huge flood.

Well, the river DID make the canyon, not a mythical globle-girdling flood, but there is a grain of truth in what you say.

The canyon was formed by THOUSANDS of large floods OF THE RIVER.

Of course now, there are so many dams and so much irrigation water taken from the river that there isn't all that much erosion going on at all, but even if you'd visited the Grand Canyon in, say, 1900, most likely the day you visit, the river wasn't eroding much at all.

Basically, for any given river, almost ALL the erosion of its valley occurs on the few days a year it's flooding.

In the case of the natural Colorado, basically all of its erosion took place during a few days or a few weeks when the Rockies snowpack melted.

The rest of the year, there's basically no erosion at all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.