Web www.exploremyspace.com

BIBLE AND GRAND CANYON             

        Bible represents indeed a rather remarkable phenomenon.  Allegedly compiled some seventeen centuries ago, it still influences human affairs in a vast range of fields.  Bible inspires, motivates, fulfills and uplifts.  Nonetheless, it also confuses, separates and disturbs.  Like no other book in the history of literature, Bible directs and controls human thought in ways that its original writers would have probably never imagined.  For the believers, who regard it as the inspired word of God, this comes as a natural and obvious consequence.  Bible does direct and guide their lives and very often the interpretation of it as well.  However, for those who do not necessarily subscribe to the biblical text as a divine message, to look to it for the clues regarding human appearance on Earth, creation of the universe, or any other historical events, represents simply a superstitious, primitive and unscientific mindset.  Needless to say, the conflicts between the two mentioned groups have caused throughout years a tremendous amount of endless controversies.  No other book has added so much anxiety, turmoil and excitement to Bible lovers’ and haters’ lives than this ancient text.  Whether one cherishes it or despises it, it surely has stirred up a variety of emotions. 

        One of the debates involving Bible has recently broken out in the Grand Canyon National Park in USA.  In May 2003 the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research published a book entitled “Grand Canyon; a Different View”.  It was written by Tom Vail, a former Colorado River tourist guide, and it went on sale in three different Grand Canyon Park souvenir stores in August 2003.  In his book, Vail explains how the Grand Canyon appears the way it does as the result of the Biblical Genesis Flood, the Noah Flood.  Obviously, this view contradicts the widely acknowledged scientific explanation of how the Canyon came into being and in particular it challenges the canyon’s age.  Scientists claim the Grand Canyon has been fashioned by the Colorado River over 5-6 millions of years.  Vail, on the other hand, holds that years of rock erosion did not have anything to do with it and claims that the canyon is in fact much, much younger.  He officially stated,

          For years, as a Colorado River guide, I told people how the Grand

          Canyon was formed over the evolutionary timescale of million of years.

          Then I met the Lord.  Now I have a different view of the canyon, which,

          according to a biblical timescale, can’t possibly be more than a few

          thousand years old. [1]

        To support his position of the canyon created by a tremendous amount of water over a short period of time, the book incorporated 23 essays by creationists and theologians. 14 of them represent prominent scientists who received PhDs in various fields including geology, paleontology, biology, biochemistry, physics, and geophysics from renowned universities such as Harvard, Penn State and Princeton.  As “Young Earth creationists”, they believe that the Grand Canyon’s “rocks were formed by deposits from the flood told of in Genesis and the canyon itself was cut when a lake broke its natural dam and cut through the rock in just a few days.” [2]  The commotion over this matter has begun, The Independent-London reports, when a professor of geology from one of the California universities has complained to the park officials about the book inclusion in the natural sciences section commenting further on the book’s content as full of “absurdities”. [3]

        Following this complaint, seven scientific bodies along with the American Geological Institute contacted the National Park Service (NPS) urging it to remove Vail’s book from the shelves of the Grand Canyon Park’s bookstores.  They were concerned that by allowing the religious view such as Vail’s concept of the canyon’s young age in the national park, the public might feel that this represents the park’s official and scientific stance.

          The National Park Service should be extremely careful about giving

          the impression that it approves of the anti-science movement known

          as young Earth creationism or endorses the advancement of

          religious tenets as science, [4] expressed geologists.

        Among those who strongly opposed the book availability in the park’s stores was Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a nonprofit group of federal and state resource workers. [5]   Jeff Ruch, the director of the organization, said,

          This is a book that by its cover it shouts out, ‘This is a biblical

          interpretation of how the Grand Canyon came to be in only

          thousands of years’.  This is a decision to approve, in essence, a

          religious book. [6]

          Under the pressure of the great amount of criticism and official complaints, the National Park Service decided to seek legal advice from the park’s national headquarters in Washington after the officials have sent the book to them for review.  In the meantime, despite a large number of scientists who opposed the book’s presence in the park’s stores altogether, few of them expressed their approval of it as long as it did not make attempts to pass as science.  As a result, and before the legal decision is made, the Grand Canyon officials have moved Vail’s book from the natural sciences to the inspirational literature section.  It has sold out and hundred of new copies have been reordered.

        The amount of controversies generated by Vail’s “Grand Canyon; a Different View” overwhelmed the author himself.  “The idea that a little book could create such a commotion is amazing to me”, [7] he said.  Incredible as it may seem, the book nonetheless did cause a lot of disturbance.

        One of the more obvious debates that sprang up, or rather reappeared, owing to Vail’s “little book” was not a new discussion over the religious materials at public sites.  Among others, the controversy over the canyon brought back the recent issue of the biblical plaques removed from the Grand Canyon tourist vistas after the complaint filed about them by the American Civil Liberties Union.  Only a summer before Vail’s publication, Grand Canyon officials removed three plaques with biblical psalms donated 30 years ago by the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary.  However, Vail’s book controversy has caused the Park Service director, Donald W. Murphy, to reconsider that decision.  As a result, the plaques were returned and enjoy being displayed again.  Murphy told the Sisters he regretted that “further legal analysis and policy review did not take place” before removing the plaques and he apologized to them for inconvenience. [8]  

        The debate over the religious and particularly, in the case of the United States, Christian views being displayed or endorsed by the government bodies is not new, but still not very old either.  The separation of church and state issue has been around for quite some time now.  However, only until relatively recently the legal attitude toward the Bible changed separating it more eagerly than before from the government affairs.  Interestingly, only 30 years ago, as New York Times Magazine from 1971 reported, “any persons or any groups who assist in any way to undermine faith in the teaching of the Bible are working in harmony with Communism.” [9]   In other words, if Vail’s book was available 30 or 40 years ago, no one would dare to even consider it banned out of sheer fear of being accused of allying with communists.

        Amusing as the above quoted comment expressing the previous mentality may sound, what it illustrates is the higher position Bible held in the eyes of the law in the past than it does in the present.  The principle of separation of the religious matters from the national, secular ones never drew such an attention as it is experiencing now.  In ancient and medieval times, religion constituted the fundamental and integral part of the state life.  Priests and kings acted as partners in running and developing the tribal, city and national affairs. [10]   Now, it seems, situation drastically changed.  Not only is the state business removed from that of the church but also the citizens can no longer enjoy the easy access to various insights deemed as religious in any of the government-run institutions.  Or rather, this seems to represent a “church and state” principle ideal and this is precisely what the controversy has been ceaselessly steaming around.  What national parks’ officials themselves in the Seattle Times’ words say constitutes a problem is “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.” [11]  

        This leads to the next point of the controversy.  If the notion of the church and state separation requires the ban of certain materials from the government locations, would it not equate to the freedom of speech and expression violation and further on to sheer censorship?  Do certain books need the protection of the law?  Do we no lose this way freedom to choose for ourselves what suits our vision of reality?

        According to some, certain contents need censoring.  Plato, Augustine, or Spinoza openly declared that censorship advances and not limits personal freedom. 

          When what is true and good is known, anything that would subvert

          it should be controlled-not to narrow man’s freedom, but to save him

          from the unfreedom of immorality or harmful doctrine that might

          damage him or the community. [12]

        With due to respect to all three thinkers, it must be argued, however, that to identify those with qualifications to differentiate between such good and wrong would initiate a new series of controversy.  Who is to decide what doctrine might or might not turn out harmful to any individual or even communities?  Furthermore, to restrict one thing may lead to others demanding similar outcomes, the situation that in law circles was rightfully termed a “slippery slope.” [13]

        Aristotle seemed to hold quite a different position.  According to him, “if choice is foreclosed by another’s judgment about what is virtuous or wise, freedom is lost.”  More importantly still, “the chances of discovering what really is virtuous or wise diminish when experimentalism and disagreement are impossible.” [14]   Similarly today, several geologists who normally oppose creationism do not mind Vail’s “different view” present in the park’s stores.

          …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 there, the better. [15]

        Apparently, the park officials and scientists do not agree.  According to them, any views that contradict the geological and scientific position on the Grand Canyon history should not be promoted not to confuse the visitors.  Geologists wrote,  

          Any implied approval or endorsement by the NPS for the book

          and others like it undermines efforts to educate the public about

          the scientific understanding of Grand Canyon geology. [16]

Additionally, Maureen Oltrogge, public affairs officer for the park stated,

          If park visitors raise questions about creationism, rangers are

          supposed to defer to science…We also recognize there are other

          beliefs out there.  We don’t teach that.  We teach current accepted

          geological science and history. [17]

        Perhaps it is here where the new dimension of the controversy emerges. 

While the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and others wish to remove the book on the basis that it does not represent science but religion, many of those who subscribe to creationism claim that its theories can be explained scientifically.  When viewed this way, could Bible become a science guide and Vail’s book a scientific interpretation and contribution to it?  Could it additionally be that, when considered this way, “Grand Canyon; a Different View” should find its place in the scientific and geological section?

        Although hard to accept by the majority of scholars, there appears a number of creationism scientists who hold on precisely to this form of argument.  The Grand Canyon National Park directors oppose the book since for them it strays from and attacks science. [18]   The Supreme Court has officially ruled creation science already in 1987 as “intrinsically a religious view.” [19]   However, as the growing number of scientists who oppose evolution demonstrates, it may not necessarily turn out to be the case.  Or at least, this is what creationists are striving to prove.

        The arguments they gather to support their theory scientifically are many.  In the book entitled “Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation in six days?” edited by Ashton, 50 experts in various scientific fields share their knowledge as to how scientific data can be applied to reinforce the belief in short creation. [20]   They primarily oppose Lyell’s uniformitarian philosophy of the orthodox science which, simply put, explains the past processes on the basis of the present ones. [21]   Creationist scientists state that to construct the past on such grounds represents bad science and, interestingly, falls this way itself into the category of sheer religion. [22] “None of it is science”, said Vail, “science has to be repeatable and measurable.  What they call science is theory just as what is in my book is theory.”  Creationists firmly stress that, since elements of the universe need to be measured and observed in order to qualify as science, none of the evolutionists’ or Grand Canyon’s old age theories deserve such a term. 

        To understand better creationists’ position, it might be useful to look at some definitions of what qualifies as science.  The Geologic Resources Division Chief from the Grand Canyon Park, Shaver, submitted a memo with the description of science as follows,

          Science uses…empirical methods to understand the natural world.

          Scientific research involves observation of natural phenomena,

          formulation of testable hypotheses to explain these phenomena, and

          …experiments to test these hypotheses.  Scientific theories… survived

          extensive testing and repeated verification…Our understanding of Earth’s

          development over its 4.5 billion year history has achieved the status of

          scientific theory. [23]

        Interestingly, as creationists indicate, the geologists’ theories of the Grand Canyon’s old age do not seem to fall into the category of science as presented above despite Shaver’s belief to the contrary.

        There appears a great amount of other theories that reveal creationists’ attempt to illustrate that the young earth creationism represents a scientific approach. [24]   They provide well-researched data that aims to prove that the sedimentary deposits in the Canyon did not get formed through gradual erosion. [25]   They appeal to the Thermodynamics Law to additionally reinforce their antievolution stance. [26]   Furthermore, there emerged a number of scientific agencies such as The American Scientific Affiliation, The Creation Research Society, or The Creation Science Research Center formed in order to investigate scientific data supporting divine creation. [27]   They do not claim that their theories are anything more than only theories.  However, they stress the point that the orthodox concepts do not represent the absolutes either.  They present their facts as an alternative model that also fits with the scientific data if so desired. [28]   The agencies demonstrate the fact that such scientific data can fit both models, evolutionary and creationist, depending on the vision of life one wishes to embrace as well as on what ideology one chooses to stand by.  Presenting their case from the scientific position, they hope to find their theories among alternative views among other scientific concepts.

        When allowed to be viewed from this perspective, Vail’s Grand Canyon book takes on a quite different character and the controversy around it emerges from a whole new dimension.  If considered to represent an alternative model in science, the book should not only never be banned from the park’s souvenir stores but it should perhaps have never departed from the natural sciences section to start with?  And what with the Bible itself?  What role does it assume under these circumstances? A science tract with clues as to the real nature of the universe’s creation?

        The interpretation of the controversy surrounded Vail’s book takes still a different course when influenced by those who perceive it as only a part of the broader social context.  The debate in this case takes the discussion out of the canyon and even out of the creationists versus evolutionists issues and transports it into the midst of the national liberalism against conservatism political struggle.  By allowing Vail’s book for sale as well as by restoring the three plaques with biblical verses in public Grand Canyon sites the government demonstrates, as some believe, the so-called “faith- based parks” policy promoted by president Bush administration. [29]   The critics say that what it shows is that the National Park Service “has caved to pressure from conservative and fundamentalist Christian groups.” [30]   “Grand Canyon; a Different View” being permitted into Grand Canyon stores becomes this way for some a symbol of broader political agenda.  The PEER, for instance, attacked the park’s approval of book’s sale as the indicator of the fact that “the Christian fundamentalists and morally conservative groups have special entrée with the decision makers at the Park Service and the White House.” [31]   

        Correct as this form of approach may or may not in reality be, the case of Vail’s book illustrates that individual books, especially when related to biblical matters, seldom remain purely biblical matters.  As demonstrated above, the controversy surrounding the Grand Canyon bestseller assumed quite an unpredictable number of dimensions.  First, it was “simply” an issue regarding religious materials at public, government-sponsored sites reviving the church versus state political debate.  Subsequently, the controversy turned into the realm of the freedom of speech and whether or not censorship of certain materials represented a necessary in some cases procedure.  When viewed from the creationists’ perspective, the book controversy served as a catalyst in their struggle for the approval of their theories as equal by orthodox scientific communities.  Finally, Vail’s work contributed substantially to the reheated, national-scale battle between liberals and Bush’s conservative groups. 

        Depending on the individual, social, or political interest, “Grand Canyon; a Different View” as well as the Bible it refers to itself have led people’s minds down a variety of quite different avenues causing tremendous amount of anxiety and turmoil.  All by themselves neither of them would ever achieve that.  In order to generate controversies as they both do, they need a political, social and personal context that will respond negatively or positively to the books’ contents.  Bible does have a potential to provide people with meaning.  It triggers certain understanding of certain aspects of the experienced reality.  However, it does not have the power to create the totality of that reality despite what many believers undoubtedly hold.  Its usage limits itself to “merely’ fit the reality out there already constructed, personally or culturally.  Vail wrote his book already established in the chosen vision of his reality.  The Bible represented to him the well of data confirming beautifully his envisaged world.  He wrote the book and unconsciously set in motion the wheel for others to continue in the similar fashion.  Now it is his book that many choose to look to for the reaffirming of their already observed facts or subtle suspicions.  Be it the Grand Canyon as the work of the divine flood, or perhaps the book’s acceptance into the park’s premises as the indicative of national “faith-based” policy, the book by itself did not create the discussed issues.  It “merely” filled the sense of these issues already present in society’s minds.  It “merely” reflected the individual and national mind frame.  Through the variety of reactions to its contents, the book “merely” revealed the American society’s own mind substance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Ed. by Ashton, J. F., Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation in 6 days?, New Holland, Sydney, 1999

Ed. by Beus, S. S. and Morales, M., Grand Canyon Geology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990

Clark, H., New Creationism, Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, 1980

Ed. by Downs, R, B., The first freedom, American Library Association, Chicago, 1960

Gillispie, C. C., Genesis and Geology, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1959

Morris, H. M., The Scientific Case for Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, Inc., San Diego, 1977

Nelkin, D., The Creation Controversy; Science or Scripture in the Schools, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1982

Pfeffer, L., Rev. Ed., Church, State and Freedom, Beacon Press, Boston, 1967

Richardson, A., The Bible in the Age of Science, SCM Press Ltd., London, 1961

Sunstein, C. R., Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, The Free Press, New York, 1993

Whitcomb, J. C. and Morris, H. M., The Genesis Flood; The Biblical Record and Its Scientific  Implications, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1968

Wood, J. E., Thompson, E. B., Miller, R. T., Church and State in Scripture History and Constitutional Law, Baylor University Press, Waco, 1958

Internet sources:

‘Controversy Update’, http://www.canyonministries.com/index_files/Controversy.htm, 2004 (accessed 29 November 2004)

Newspaper references: (accessed through Factiva search engine at the University of Queensland Cybrary website)

 Agence France Press, 20 February 2004

Associated Press Newswires, 6 January 2004

Australian Financial Review, 28 May 2004

Houston Chronicle, 25 January 2004

Humanist, 1 March 2004

National Post, 10 January 2004

New Zealand Herald, 20 January 2004

NPR: Weekend Edition-Saturday, 17 January 2004

The Boston Globe, 19 January 2004

The Columbian, 8 January 2004                                                                                        

The Guardian, 9 January2004

The Independent-London, 12 January 2004

The New York Times, 18 January 2004

The San Francisco Chronicle, 2 January 2004

The Seattle Times, 9 January 2004

The Washington Post, 17 January 2004