Deep rift over creationism grows from book about Grand Canyon

By Julie Cart
Los Angeles Times

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

Now, however, a book in the park's bookstores since last summer tells another story. "Grand Canyon: A Different View," by veteran Colorado River guide Tom Vail, asserts that the canyon was formed by the Old Testament flood, the one Noah's Ark survived, and can be no older than a few thousand years.

The book includes essays from creationist scientists and theologians. Vail wrote in the introduction, "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. 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."

Reaction to the book has been sharply divided. The American Geological Institute and seven geo-science organizations sent letters to the park and to agency officials calling for the book to be removed. In part to appease some outraged Canyon employees, the book was moved from the natural-sciences section to the inspirational-reading section of park bookstores.

"I've had reactions from the staff all over the board on it," Deputy Superintendent Kate Cannon said. "There were certainly people on the interpretive staff that were upset by it. Respect of visitors' views is imperative, but we do urge our interpreters to give scientifically correct information."

Park Service spokesman David Barna, based in Washington, D.C., said each park determines which products are sold in its bookstores and gift shops. The creationist book at the Grand Canyon was unanimously approved by a panel of park and gift-shop personnel.

But the book's status at the park is still in question. Grand Canyon Superintendent Joe Alston has sought guidance from Park Service headquarters in Washington.

Meanwhile, the book has sold out and is being reordered.

The flap highlights what officials say is a problem for the national-park system: how to respect visitors' spiritual views that may directly contradict the agency's accepted scientific presentations and maintain the necessary division of church and state.

"We struggle. Creationism versus science is a big issue at some places," said Deanne Adams, the Park Service's chief of interpretation for the Pacific Region.

Adams said the questions arise most often at Western parks where geology is often highlighted, and singled out John Day Fossil Beds Monument in Oregon as a place where scientifically determined dates have been challenged.

"We like to acknowledge that there are different viewpoints, but we have to stick with the science. That's our training," Adams said. She said there is no federal guideline for how to answer religious inquiries. "Every fundamentalist or Christian group has a take on how they interpret the Bible. They are entitled to believe whatever they believe. It's not our job to change their minds."

The Park Service last summer ordered the reinstatement of three plaques bearing Bible verses that were erected at Grand Canyon National Park in 1970 by a group called the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. Alston called for their removal last summer after a complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Barna said Park Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy overruled Alston because he and the agency's regional attorney were not sufficiently well-versed in constitutional law.

"We contend that our superintendent knows a lot about wilderness protection but not enough about separation of church and state," Barna said.

Critics say that by condoning religious material in the park, the federal government is endorsing a particular spiritual point of view.

"The Bush administration appears to be sponsoring a program of faith-based parks," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "Any time a question arises, the professionals and lawyers are reversed and being told to respect the displays of religious symbols. We believe the actions by these officials violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution."

Some scholars, however, say they have no objection to books that offer religious interpretations of the parks, providing they are not marketed as science.

Historian Stephen Pyne, whose book, "How the Canyon Became Grand," is also on sale in the park's bookstores, said he doesn't mind if Vail's book is sold at the park, as long as it's not displayed in the science section.

"I have not read the book, but I'm familiar with the genre," Pyne said. "I think the Park Service would be remiss if it did not explain that there is not an agreed-upon story about the canyon, that there are conflicting stories. But science assumes it was not formed by a great flood or divine intervention. What this creationists' group is looking for is some sort of validation by the Park Service. There's an agenda there."

Not so, says an official of the organization that published Vail's book, the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research.

"We have a secular presentation at the Grand Canyon, and we don't want to suppress other ways of thinking," said Steven Austin, who heads ICR's geology department and worked with Vail on the book. "But there needs to be room for more than one interpretation. It is appropriate to discuss theology to express a creationist view. As long as all sides are presented, I don't see any problem with it."

Vail could not be reached for comment.

George Billingsley, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has been studying the Grand Canyon for 36 years and said scientists never have agreed about the exact age of the canyon, although most concur that the oldest formations are nearly 2 billion years old. A scientific symposium held in 2000 to resolve the question of how the canyon was formed dissolved in acrimony and adjourned without consensus, he said.

As for the creationist theory, Billingsley said, "If someone presented that theory to me, I'd say you gotta have proof. You have to have some kind of mechanism to show what you say happened. I don't know how to argue with someone like that.

"But as far as putting the book in the bookstore, that's fine. That's the freedoms we have. Everyone has to make up their own mind. You could put a book in there that says alien beings created the canyon. The more ideas you have out, the better."

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company