How old is the Grand Canyon, really?

For several years now, the age of the Grand Canyon has been an issue between the National Park Service, employees of the National Park Service, the public, and the scientific community. Why?

In January of 2007, Don Hazen of AlterNet published an article dealing with a critique by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) of the National Park Service. PEER claimed that Grand Canyon National Park "is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geological age of its principle feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees."

At the same time, says Hazen, "a book approved by the Service claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood, rather than geologic forces," has been on sale in the park bookstore for three years, "even though a review was promised to Congress and the press. A Freedom of Information request ... reveals that no review has ever been requested, nor taken place."

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


Ken Ham, the fundamentalist creator of the Creation Museum, among other assaults on common sense, has printed material from the National Park Service, ostensibly to deflect criticisms such as those raised by PEER.


The following is from David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service:

"The National Park Service uses the latest National Academy of Sciences explanation for the geologic formation of the Grand Canyon ... If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer.

"The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old ...

"So, why are there news reports that differ from this explanation?

"Since 2003 the park bookstore has been selling a book that gives a Creationist view of the formation of the Grand Canyon, claiming that the canyon is less than 6,000 years old. This book is sold in the inspirational section of the bookstore. In this section are photographic texts, poetry books, and Native American books (that also give an alternative view of the formation of the canyon) ... We do not use the Creationist text in our teaching nor do we endorse its content. However, neither do we censor alternative beliefs ..."


Carl Zimmerman is an award-winning scientist and writer. In March of this year he published an article titled "How to Date the Grand Canyon: Go With the Flow." Here's part of what he says:

"The Grand Canyon is a victim of terrible press.

"Its banded walls make up one of the most magnificent landscapes on Earth. And yet it seems the only time reporters bother to mention its geology is when they are writing about creationists and their bogus claims that the Grand Canyon formed a few thousand years ago. It's a shame, because the real story of the Grand Canyon is a riveting epic. Even its scientific history is fascinating: Figuring out just how old the Grand Canyon is has challenged geologists for 150 years. And just this week, the mystery may be solved."

Zimmerman refers to the creationist book, "The Grand Canyon: A Different View," by Tom Vail. He says when the book appeared in park stores in 2003, "National Park geologists went ballistic. They demanded that it be pulled. Vail's lawyers threatened to sue. As the national media's attention turned to a juicy fight, the National Park Service hemmed and hawed, saying that they would review the matter. They never did. [My emphasis]

"As I worked on this story I checked with the National Park Service, five years after the book appeared in their stores to see if it was still for sale. It is."

Zimmerman continues to describe how geologists have discovered time stamps "inside the hundreds of caves inside the Grand Canyon's walls" ... exactly what geologists have been looking for, and these time stamps have provided the data needed to determine the age of the Grand Canyon.

Thus Zimmerman concludes: "The Grand Canyon is far older than Noah's flood, but at just 17 million years or so, it's geologically infantile. For 99.99 percent of Earth's history, the Grand Canyon as we know it did not exist. ..."


Let's back up and consider the disingenuous comments of Mr. Barna, PR poohbah for the Park Service. Notice that he does not deny the reported pressure from the Bush administration nor does he say park employees did not refrain from saying "No comment" when asked the age of the Grand Canyon. Like most PR people, Barna is adept at avoiding the question.

The rest of his answer is just as disingenuous. Why would a government agency like the National Park Service carry a Creationist treatise in its book store that defies the park service's basic explanation for the age of the Grand Canyon? What possible explanation could there be for such stupidity, other than pressure from above?

And his lame comments about other books -- "photographic texts," poetry books, and Native American books" giving an "alternative view of the canyon's origin." That's plainly moronic. Vail's book pretends to be "scientific," but is a lie! The other books are in the realm of myth, or legend, or as he noted, poetry!


Barna concluded his comments this way: "It is not our role to tell people what to believe."

The hell it isn't! We're not dealing with theology here, we're dealing with geology! And when Barna says something as idiotic as that, it becomes quite clear that the Bushites did indeed put pressure on park employees and you can bet your bippy they said "No comment" when asked the age of the canyon. You think they wanted to lose their jobs?

We moved several centuries backward since Bush came into office eight years ago dragging his fundamentalist friends behind him!