Grand Canyon Rangers Now Silent on Age

Due to supposed "pressures" from different sides, Grand Canyon park rangers are no longer allowed to say that the canyon is millions of years old. What more is there to the story?In quite an amazing turn of events, Grand Canyon Rangers are reportedly no longer permitted to tell the secular-claimed geologic age of Grand Canyon. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reported this on Thursday.

Supposedly, the issue has been pressured by the presence of Tom Vail's Grand Canyon: A Different View in the park gift shop, "complaining fundamentalists," and the Bush administration. Although I can't claim to have all the facts, I will still comment on what PEER has reported.

First of all, Tom Vail's book is merely in the gift shop's "inspirational" section, along with other books of spiritual association. It has been many years since I have visited Grand Canyon, but I wouldn't be surprised if the gift shop also contained books claiming the canyon was formed by some Native Americans' god. Vail's book, however, presents the scientific interpretation that the rock layers of Grand Canyon were formed from the global flood of Noah's day, and the canyon itself carved shortly after the flood by a huge water dam that broke and let loose millions of tons of water.

Facts always require interpretation. We've probably all seen the movies where someone is killed and someone else is holding a gun. Those are the facts, but then the movie goes all around to tell the different interpretations of those facts. And it usually ends up that the guy with the gun did not kill the person. Hollywood likes this pattern.

Grand Canyon also contains many facts, and those facts are interpreted by scientists based upon their beliefs about the past. Secular scientists acknowledge that there is no written history from millions of years ago, and must then interpolate present theories into that past and develop a whole scenario—all based on untestable, unprovable assumptions.

But creation scientists claim to have recorded history of a global flood, with loads of extra-biblical support in the form of stories passed down through generations of tribes and different cultures that have no knowledge of the Bible. Starting from this historical record, it's very easy to understand that a global flood would rip up sediment and redeposit in around the globe. And almost everyone is familiar with the natural sorting of elements into layers under water (fill a clear container with sand, gravel, and rocks to see this in action). Thus, if the global flood really occurred, we'd expect to find rock layers all over Earth, and we find exactly this. And there are many findings consisted with water-laid layers rather than slow accumulations.

Secular scientists claim that the Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon. But there is strong evidence that massive lakes, held in by dams of ice or rock, once existed in the area around Grand Canyon. When these dams broke, the force of millions of tons of water receding would have extreme carving power, especially combined with moving rock within the water. Already, we've observed local floods that can carve out concrete or move large boulders.

So when you compare the two interpretations, the historical interpretation of a flood makes far more sense of the facts than the assumed interpretation of gradual processes over millions of years.

Now, back to the park rangers.

“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”

Wow. That's ... kind of dumb. Ruch is basically claiming that to not comment on the age of the canyon is throwing out geology? His understanding of geology would have to be in question.

The science of geology does not require acceptance of millions of years of assumed history. When we see modern geological events like earthquakes or volcanic activity, creationists and evolutionists use the same science to understand the present—we call this observational science. Both are fully capable of using the scientific methods in geology to understand the events without having to assuming millions or billions of years.

PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.

This would actually seem like a good idea, but the problem is that so many people forget what science actually is. I'm amazed at the extreme hostility toward creation science. You can use the best application of the scientific method to build the most-powerful computer, but just the mention of God makes you instantly a religious nut, according to ranting seculars. The bad logic they use in their arguments is embarrassing!

I've probably put some of my readers to sleep by now. So I shall wrap up.

Should Grand Canyon park rangers be allowed to explain the geologic age of the canyon? Actually, I think that they should. But the question arises of which age to give. Millions of years assumed by secular scientists, or about 4,500 years understood from verifiable recorded history? I think that the rangers should explain both. After all, the purpose for their presence at the canyon is to educate visitors, and what good is education if you only hear one part? Here's a suggested answer for a park ranger:
There are two popular theories on the age of the canyon and rock layers within it. Some scientists claim that the canyon formed over millions of years of carving by the Colorado River. Other scientists claim that the canyon resulted from the breaking of a massive lake that once covered hundreds of square miles in this area. The resulting water force carried many large rocks that carved the canyon as the water escaped to lower altitudes. We have several books in our gift shop that can explain either of these theories.

What part of that was religious? What part of that is contrary to science? "God" doesn't have to be mentioned, or the Bible referenced. Neither view has to be endorsed. But by explaining both views, the visitor will be far better educated.