Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is "a national non-profit alliance of local, state and federal scientists, law enforcement officers, land managers and other professionals dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values." Among other things, PEER serves as the voice of government employees who object to "anti-environmental" policies and practices within government agencies.
One of PEER's campaigns is challenging "Faith-based Parks." Specifically, PEER is concerned that the Bush Administration has pushed the National Park Service to reject scientific analysis and explanations in an effort to cater to religious fundamentalists. Among other things, PEER claimed that the Bush Administration was pressuring NPS employees to accomodate creationist explanations of the Grand Canyon's history, and tell the public that the canyon in thousands, rather than millions, of years old. PEER claimed in a press release that:
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.The charge is plausible -- after all, one administration employee sought to edit NASA's website so as to protect religious sensibilities -- and, if true, quite objectionable. The problem, as the Skeptic Society's Michael Shermer documents, PEER's central claim does not pan out. It is true that one of the books the NPS offers for sale at the Grand Canyon National Park's bookstore is a creationist account of the Canyon's history. Yet this book is sold in the "inspiration" section of the bookstore, along with Native American creation myths and other spiritual materials. It is not sold or represented as a scientific account, nor have NPS employees ever been instructed to give anything other than a scientific explanation for the Grand Canyon's age and history.
After extensively researching PEER's claims -- and forcing a partial retraction -- Shermer is understandably distraught (in part because he initially cited PEER's charge uncritically). Perhaps the NPS shouldn't sell the offending book in its book stores, but this is hardly proves PEER's initial claims. As Shermer explains, the controversy over selling creationist books "is an old one now, and completely irrelevant to the claim that NPS employees are withholding information about the age of the canyon, and/or are being pressured to do so by Bush administration appointees." PEER's claims to the contrary -- and protracted efforts to defend the charge and deflect Shermer's inquiries -- were an "egregious display of poor judgment and unethical behavior," Shermer concludes. In the end, it seems that PEER's hostility to the Bush Administration caused it to overstate the facts. There are enough examples of political manipulation of scientific claims without the need for PEER or others to invent new ones.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Adler v. Mooney -- One Last Time:
- Chilling Climate Dissent:
- GOP "War on Science" -- Mooney Responds:
- The GOP "War on Science":
- PEER Overstates "Faith-based Park" Problem:
Even though I've outgrown fundamentalism, this brouhaha strikes me as no different: As Eugene notes, "this book is sold in the 'inspiration' section of the bookstore, along with Native American creation myths." Where, I ask, is the outrage?
And, WTF is this?:
Last I heard, the Big Bang was a theory. Seems appropriate to label it as such.
While the word "theory" contains a general meaning, in scientific terms, it is a accepted conclusion shared by many in the scientific community. To state, like many do about Evolution and the Big Bang, that these scientific ideas are just “theories” misrepresents what a theory is in the scientific community. To say the least, this is intellectually dishonest.
So, ajftoo: don’t assume the meaning of theory applies in all fields and all contexts. Labeling these as “just theories” is a linguistic slight-off-hand that tries to cover up evidence and support within the Scientific Community because it does not fit the ideological beliefs of a religious community.
These goofy missteps happen all the time in the government (including during the Clinton Administration). It is only when it is a Republican president that the press (and others) decide to cherry-pick human stupidity and weave it into a "web of deceit and abuse." This is a corruption-at-the-very-highest-levels!!! mountain being made out of a molehill. Sheesh!
My point is that it is accurate, in fact it is only accurate, to refer to the "Big Bang theory."
I would be willing to goof on Deutsch for his religious beliefs, but his directions to the web editor were completely appropriate given his position. And, in no way does that incident make PEER's lies plausible as the esteemed Mr. Adler claimed.
I'm not assuming that the meaning of theory applies in all fields and all contexts, I'm asserting that it does. You may disagree, but you'd be wrong.
The connotations of the word theory is vastly different in the scientific community than it is in the vernacular. By inserting “theory” into the “Big Bang,” something that would not be done for Gravity, it is a political move to undermine the scientific community.
The same thing occurs with the evolution sticker, which is why a federal court struck down the use of the disclaimer “Evolution is a Theory, not a Fact” on biology textbooks. Anti-Evolutionists attempted a linguistic ploy to undermine the case for evolution without trying to debate the issue of evolution.
While you are correct that it is a “theory,” my point was that the word “theory” possesses different meanings according to its context. And like the evolution case, to use the phrase the “Big Bang is just a theory” as Deutsch stretches and diminished the word “theory” so it no longer represents what the word means in the scientific community. It would be better, and certainly more ethical from a debate position, to engage the position rather than create a straw person argument over the meaning of “theory.”
As for the Grand Canyon, I wasn't aware that it was even mentioned in the Bible. (ahem) What's the connection between the big hole in the ground and the creation stories of cultures that didn't know the big hole in the ground even existed???
Agreed, I find it amusing that anyone seriously believe that the President of the United States is issuing orders to his subordinates over the pamphlets handed out at the Grand Canyon. It’s almost as ridiculous as political attack ads (yes both sides do it) directed at a member of Congress because of some obscure appropriation that was stuck in an omnibus spending bill. Better to stick to general disagreements over policy.
The larger a boogeyman some people have, the more justified they feel that their reactionary stace has become.
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=805
Adler and Shermer both have a legitimate beef against PEER, but they're also a little bit off the mark, especially for blaming PEER for attacking a book in the "inspirational" section when (assuming PEER is right) that section was created post-hoc in an effort to evade responsibility for selling the book.
Two quick points: a) PEER initially made far stronger claims than those just related to the book, and b) this later release was not issued by PEER until after Shermer started asking questions abou their claims.
JHA
“Our only point is that the Park Service should stop selling the book with a government seal of approval,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Nonetheless, we are delighted that the Park Service has, after three years, finally chosen to publicly and unambiguously acknowledge that the Grand Canyon is the product of evolutionary geologic forces.”
I sure hope not. "Evolutionary geologic forces"? What, the Grand Canyon was carved via natural selection?
I presume Ruch means only that the Park Service says the Canyon is older than a "young Earth" creationist would have it. But, really, if the point of this site is to uphold science, using "evolutionary" as casually as that is no way to do it. Yeesh.
Another reading of this would be that the Park Services hasn’t really changed what it’s been saying all along about the age of and forces which created the Grand Canyon and after having been caught lying about it, PEER is trying to embellish a controversy over a book in the book store to pretend otherwise. Which puts Jeff Ruch in the same category of nutters as Anisa Abd el Fattah whining about the “Jewish Lobby.”
I see no need to muddy the waters as to what a myth is.
This whole controversy brought to mind an essay in the Wall Street Journal from July 2004 that discussed the wide array of virulently anti-Bush books that were being sold in the bookstore at the National Archives. Funny that some folks think that Bush cares enough about creationism to insist that National Parks bookstores carry them but has somehow overlooked the screeds attacking his administration being sold in government bookstores a few blocks from the White House. Yet, as Mr. Last said at the time:
I doubted at the time that many of the local people really believe that, and I am fairly sure that they shouldn't because it isn't true.
Kind of like saying, "Europeans know that the universe was created in the nightfall preceeding October 23rd 6,012 years ago."
While the second PEER release came out after Shermer started putting the heat on them, it also came out before you criticized them for attacking a book that is merely located in the "inspirational" section.
While I don't think PEER looks good regarding the claim that geology was being suppressed (unless their alleged sources come in from the cold), they seem vindicated regarding the book, and they've done a service to science by getting that book out of the science section of the park bookstores. The attack against them is somewhat miscalibrated.
Also, what proof do you have for your statement that not giving an official estimate was PEER's central claim? It would be useful to see what the first release looked like before they redacted this claim, but my overall impression is the central claim focused on the book.
Reminds me of Hannah Arendt's line: Democracy is rule by the many, autocracy is rule by the few, and bureaucracy is rule by no one.
Read Shermer's account and get back to me. As he notes, PEER issued a press release with a headline and lead that focused on the claim that the Bush Administration was preventing Park Service employees from disclosing the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. Moreover, the issue about selling the book was old hat (and, as many posters note, is hardly likely to have been ordered by high level officials), and hardly something that should be the source of such outrage.
JHA
Some people want the federal government to stop a private party from selling a book because it is bad for children. The ends justify the means, don't you know...
For myself, I find it difficult to trust anyone, especially anyone who puts out press releases.
I distinctly remember a campaign against fundies interfering with the sacred canyon, and much longer ago than this week.
Anyhow, 30-some years ago, I took my kids to the Field Museum in Chicago and was dismayed to see a "Pyramid Power Kit" in the gift shop. Dismayed enough to write a letter to the museum, which was never answered.
Since then I have made it a point to inspect museum stores for crackpottery and guess what? It's all over.
The store managers will stock anything they can sell. It appears that museum directors either 1) don't look in the stores; or 2) consider that gift shop managers have free speech rights, too.
I would expect 2 to be welcomed by libertarians.
Yep, doesn't seem much to be worried about. Checked into it a bit and (not surprising) entire offices and staffs and lengthy regulations on National Park Service brochures. Nothing I could see specifically about Christian ethnographic concerns/policy, although of course a lot about native ethnography/ belief systems. Probably just makes sense.
At least the National Parks Service document says evolution is "the only plausible scientific explanation." Still room for non-scientific plausible (?) explanations presumably. Maybe good enough for the intelligent design etc. folks. Or maybe not.
National Parks Service
Department of the Interior
http://tinyurl.com/2pz88j
Unit Three Background
The concept of evolution has an importance in education that goes beyond its power as a scientific explanation...
........Evolution is the only plausible scientific explanation that accounts for the extensive array of observations summarized above. The concept of evolution through random genetic variation and natural selection makes sense of what would otherwise be a huge body of unconnected observations. From the cumulative evidence presented by scientists, it is no longer possible to sustain scientifically the view that the living things we see today did not evolve from earlier forms or that the human species was not produced by the same evolutionary mechanisms that apply to the rest of the living world.
Excerpts from:
National Science Foundation, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press, 1998, ISBN 0-309-06364-7
I had read Shermer's piece before, but at your kind suggestion I re-read it and you're right, the geology suppression was the central claim.
That leaves the claim reported in Networld that the book was always located in the inspirational section. Assuming Networld isn't lying, then we have a factual dispute between PEER and the Park Service guy handling bookstores. It's worth noting that there are multiple bookstores at the Canyon, so it might have been placed in different sections at different stores, despite whatever orders came down from the administration.
FWIW, I think a statement by Park employees, complaining that the Park Service won't expressly dissociate itself from the Creationist myth book it's selling, may have been misreported into saying they're not allowed to give an official estimate of geological age. While this would be unacceptable sloppiness, it's not blatant lying.
Also worth noting that the book is sold on the official, Park Service-affiliated website, which doesn't have an Inspirational category to segregate the book into. The description there:
While not placed in a science or natural history category, the book also isn't categorized as Inspirational.
Finally, without having read the books about the Hopi creation myths sold at the park, I'm willing to bet money that they don't pretend to be scientifically-verified accounts of what happens, while Vail's book is the opposite. That makes stocking Vail's book more problematic.
Otherwise it would be considerably more dificult to change the subject from PEER's lying and Skeptic's admission of BDS.
And Skeptic mag and about a jillion others to jump all over it to demonstrate that BDS is not a fantasy.