I call bullshit on the Noah's flood/ Grand Canyon story

[Connonym]

If we spread lies we're no better than the fundie asswipes.

The original article on Alternet states "According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) in a report released this week , 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." (http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/don/46043/)

The PEER report (http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/06_28_12_peer_ltr_Bomar.pdf) states "Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis. As a consequence, NPS staff has no official guidance as to how to answer questions from the public concerning topics such as creationists’ “young earth” claims. Further, media inquiries to the Grand Canyon superintendent seeking an official statement on the geologic age of the Canyon have produced replies such as “no comment” and referral of the reporter to NPS Headquarters."

_____
The National Parks website states "How old is the Canyon?

That's a tricky question. Although rocks exposed in the walls of the canyon are geologically quite old, the Canyon itself is a fairly young feature. The oldest rocks at the canyon bottom are close to 2000 million years old. The Canyon itself - an erosional feature - has formed only in the past five or six million years. Geologically speaking, Grand Canyon is very young. (top of page)

Are the oldest rocks in the world exposed at Grand Canyon?

No. Although the oldest rocks at Grand Canyon (2000 million years old) are fairly old by any standard, the oldest rocks in the world are closer to 4000 million years old. The oldest exposed rocks in North America, which are among the oldest rocks in the world, are in northern Canada."
_____
It seems to be true that they are selling a book stating that the Grand Canyon resulted from Noah's flood but no where in there does it state that park Rangers are not allowed to tell the true age of the canyon. Sure the book is ignorant and selling it a poor choice but that is a whole different animal than making park Rangers tell people that the flood caused the Grand Canyon. Some pretty shitty cite sourcing by the Alternet article in my opinion. Yes the fundies are ruining science in plenty of ways but this is not one of them and we shouldn't exagerate or misrepresent the truth to make them look worse. They manage to look pretty fucking bad on their own. Let's not sink to their level.