A geologist who bases his work around Christian beliefs concerning the age of the Earth has been given a permit to study rocks at the bottom of Grand Canyon National Park, according to his attorney.
The National Park Service initially had declined his permit request, and that ignited a three-year long campaign by Dr. Andrew Snelling, who earlier this year sued the Park Service over the matter.
Dr. Snelling back in November 2013 had sought a permit to collect roughly 30 pounds of rocks from the Inner Gorge of the park for use in explaining "geological phenomena and other endeavors from a Biblical perspective." He wanted to collect the samples from the floor of the Grand Canyon "to study the folding of Paleozoic sedimentary structure."
That request, his lawsuit alleged, led to an odyssey during which park staff asked two other outside geologists to weigh in on the merits of Dr. Snelling's proposal. One of those geologists, Dr. Karl Karlstrom of the University of New Mexico, in reviewing the proposal demonstrated, in the lawsuit's words, "antipathy for Dr. Snelling’s religious faith."
Dr. Snelling's attorneys withdrew the lawsuit last week after the Park Service relented and agreed to issue the necessary permit.
“When the government refuses to allow a Christian geologist simply to collect information because it dislikes his views, it undercuts science and violates the law,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb, co-counsel for Snelling. “We commend Park Service officials, Interior Secretary (Ryan) Zinke, and the Trump administration for understanding that specifically targeting Dr. Snelling’s faith as the reason to stop his research was both inappropriate and unconstitutional. As the Park Service finally admitted, ‘Dr. Snelling’s proposal is well stated with methods that are similar or equal to standard scientific practice to test the hypothesis provided,’ so it is the right choice to let the research go forward.”
Comments
This is interesting:
From AAAS: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/creationist-geologist-sues-us-par...
Absolutely
I am a scientist, and my peer reviewed papers have been cited way more than Dr. Snelling's.
_I_ cannot just ask for and automatically receive a research permit for doing anything I want in a National Park. I couldn't when I was an academic: it took careful proposal writing, often replies to park staff questions, and 1-3 months for approval. I can't now, even though I work for NPS. My research still must be judged to have merit, have a need to occur in a park rather than elsewhere, and provide either a benefit to the park or a larger benefit to the public and scientific knowledge. If I don't write a solid permit request, explaining & justifying the scientific merit of my research and addressing all potential resource impacts, my application will get rejected.
Beyond that, if my research involves collecting specimens or destructively sampling, there is much greater scrutiny, and balancing the potential benefits & knowledge versus the resource impact. Biological samples can grow back if they're not too rare or slow growing. Rocks don't grow back, and collecting permits for rocks, even small amounts of rocks, are especially hard to get approved. There was a legendary incident at Guadalupe Mountains NP involving an academic geologist who obtained a research collecting permit, but then took multiple crates of rock from a face visible from well-used trails: not what the park thought they authorized. Whatever the actual facts, that story circulates among NPS natural resource folks, and serves as a warning about issuing research permits that include collecting rocks. Archeological relics also don't grow back. Even putting temporary stakes in the ground to mark off a plot can require an NPS archeological survey and sign-off before a permit is issued. [Paying for that archeological survey can be a sticking point in obtaining a research permit.]
So, I don't see the issue as being which Dr. Snelling: pre-1986 #1 or post-1986 #2. I see it as his research proposal in his research & collection permit application did not have obvious scientific merit and probably didn't make sense to the GRCA Chief of NR. Knowing it might be sensitive, the chief or permit lead sent it out to geologists with expertise in GRCA geology for external reviews of scientific merit, need to be colledted in the park, etc.. Based on their reviews of the goals & methodology, there simply wasn't justification for a scientific collection permit, even for a few kilograms of rocks.
As for tolerance of faith traditions, that's not part of the NPS Omnibus Management Act of 1998, where section 205 covers scientific research. There are separate laws covering traditional and religious uses of parks, collecting of vegetation, bird feathers, etc. Even those are not absolute rights for indigenous peoples: especially eagle feathers seem to have absolute limits set by FWS laws that trump RFRA.
As tomp2 points out, collecting material for cultural reasons is a whole other ball of wax. This dude submitted a meritless research permit - there is no such thing as science from a Biblical perspective. I'm sure you don't care or know about the difference between faith and a mode of inquiry, so whatever, hide behind some hippie "Be well."
As for eccuck, talking points direct from your GOP buddies or, maybe, Drudge. Regular people don't have casual conversations with senators but party donors and/or flunkies do.
Of course regular people have casual conversations with Senators. All they have to do is care, get off their arse and participate rather than sit on their couches and complain.
I dunno. Most GOP senators have been hiding out lately. At least from anyone who might disagree with them and not have enough $$ to catch their attention.
You are right. You "dunno" I haven't given a penny to Senator Gardner.
Reading comprehension problems again, eh? But as i wrote, they sure don't want to hear from anyone who might have other ideas.