It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yet another book to be banned

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2004 @ 10:40 AM
link   
What disney is doing to Michael Moore is wrong. It's a bunch of dishonest political BS. I disagree with Moore on just about everything, but I'll still watch his movies and read his books. If I blind myself to that which I disagree with, how can I say I'm right?

That having been said, something similar is taking place which I hope that those of you who disagree with the books content will still be upset about. I've written to Disney, and I hope that you'll write to the National Park District.

There is a concerted effort to ban a book from gift stores around the Grand Canyon. The book states, and backs, that the Grand Canyon was created in the Flood, not by the Colorado river slowly eroding it away over millions of years. Geologists are a little upset about this, and don't want it to be sold. You disagree with them, they want you censored. Why?



Although acknowledging GCA's independent status, a webpage of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) complains, "Most visitors to the park will not distinguish between facilities managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and the nonprofit association's management of the bookstores; hence it is reasonable to assume that people will believe that the young-earth position is accepted by NPS staff.


Granted, there are TONS of other books there that say the opposite, but if one book in the gift shops contradicts their beliefs, it means everyone will assume the National Park District believes that one book, not all the other 10s of books there.

Agree with the book or not, I would hope that we, especially here at ATS, would be willing to fight for people to be allowed to express their beliefs no matter how far fetched. Don't make yourselves to be hypocrites.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot the links:
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/01/08/MNGOI452ET8.DTL

www.hypocrites.com...

www.bpnews.net...

And they are presenting it as fact. Should that make a difference?

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by junglejake]




posted on May, 7 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Are they presenting the idea of the flood creating the canyon as a fact or an opinion? Do you have a link BTW?



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Does this book base its theories on purely religious grounds?
So, this book is banned due to separataion of Church and State?
*just asking
*



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Does this book base its theories on purely religious grounds?
So, this book is banned due to separataion of Church and State?
*just asking
*


No, it wouldn't be banned due to any kind of separation of Church and State, because it is a private company which owns the gift shops. And I don't know what it is based on, I'm assuming religious and scientific, as the discussion here has done: www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the gift shop originally had it under the natural science section until all the geologists started crying
at which point they moved it to inspirational (
a scientific viewpoint is inspirational?)



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   


By JungleJake
And they are presenting it as fact. Should that make a difference?


Was just wondering JungleJake. I agree it shouldn't be banned, mainly because there are hundreds of others saying the opposite as you said. It will be the religious factor that's getting them worked up. If there was a book saying it had been created by aliens I bet they wouldn't want to ban it as they'd probably think it too ridiculous to be believed, but they know that, because of religion, lots of people will believe what the book says, but the ones that do believe it would most likely have thought that in the first place anyway without the books help.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I don't agree with the premise, but I'm willing to read it anyway. The problem is that it doesn't look as if its being banned from everywhere, just this particular private bookstore. If they own a place, surely they can choose what to sell there ?

I remember a while ago in the UK when certain privately owned bookchains refused to stock 'Da Gospel According To Ali G'. So of course I had to see what all the fuss was about. (Same with 'Spycatcher' in the 80's - Thatcher had that banned in the whole of the UK at one point so I had to get one from the US).



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Dont think that the book should be banned. What I do think is that the book should not be displayed or grouped in anyway that would suggest that it has any scientific validity.

In other words, the gift shop could have two separate sections for book. One with geology and scientific texts, and the other with legends, myths and of course this particular creationist text.

Furthermore, since the Grand Canyon features heavily in Native American creation myths, and since the Native Americans were there before the Christians, I think that any books or texts describing the Native American beliefs should be featured more prominently than the Christians.

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
The book is not being banned. One privately owned store chain is not selling it... a book which proposes the entire grand canyon was created by a 40 day flood. If I write a book based on a similar preposterous premise, and no one sells it, can I also gain press by saying it's being banned? total bull



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
I don't agree with the premise, but I'm willing to read it anyway. The problem is that it doesn't look as if its being banned from everywhere, just this particular private bookstore. If they own a place, surely they can choose what to sell there ?


Absloutly they can choose what to sell there. And no, it's not being banned everywhere, you can get it here . The problem is that the National Park Service, a government agency, is trying to force a private company to stop selling the book. If someone refused to carry the book, that's their capitalistic right here in America.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
What I do think is that the book should not be displayed or grouped in anyway that would suggest that it has any scientific validity.


That's the problem, it does have scientific validity. From reading some reviews on Amazon.com, I've gotten the idea that the book doesn't base it's entire arguement on the Bible and the Bible alone, but also incorporates secular science.

Excerpt from one review:


Could the Grand Canyon have been formed through the action of astronomical quantities of water? The authors of this book have dished out some rather weighty evidence which deserves to be understood rather than censored. Did you know that on the north side of Mount St. Helens there is a particularly deep canyon which was carved out within just nine hours on March 19, 1982? The horizontal layering effect which occured there is much the same as what is seen at the Grand Canyon, and this in itself is strong evidence supporting the idea that catastrophic processes can stack together horizontal sedimentary layers.


Evidence is presented, the foundation for the study was based in the Bible. It seems to be (I just found out about this today, and haven't read it yet) using scientific evidence to show holes in the "accepted" views.

EDIT: SO, you posted while I was posting. I think I addressed your comments in my response, I'd be interested in your response to this.

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by junglejake]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
From the original article: 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 Grand Canyon employees, the book was moved from the natural sciences section to the inspirational reading section of park bookstores. Problem solved. No? The "pseudo-science" behind the premiss of the book is terrible. More mental pabulum from the creationist camp.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Well, I just bought the book from Amazon.com. I wasn't really planning on getting it, but now I have to find out if it is, in fact, pseudo-science, or science. I'll be getting it on Tuesday, so I'll be sure to let y'all know and give quotes. And if it is pseudo-science, I will still let y'all know, even though it would be damaging to my arguement. Long and short of it, I'll review it probably by next Friday.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Hooo boy. I dont even know where to begin.



Originally posted by junglejake

That's the problem, it does have scientific validity. From reading some reviews on Amazon.com, I've gotten the idea that the book doesn't base it's entire arguement on the Bible and the Bible alone, but also incorporates secular science.


Reviews on Amazon.com? Are you kidding me? You are basing your assessment of this book on reviews on Amazon.com? Havent you figured out yet that the submitted reviews on amazon.com are a complete shill?

Furthermore, dont you think that the people reviewing the book might be a little biased?


Customers who bought this book also bought:
Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe by Austin
In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation by John F. Ashton
Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity by David Limbaugh
In the Beginning Was Information by Werner Gitt, Jaap Kies (Translator)
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of the Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow


What are the scientific credentials of the reviewers? Remember that for a theory to be considered scientifically valid it should be able to pass a peer review. In this case we would be talking about legitimate geologists with the proper academic background. Not a bunch of anonymous posters on amazon.com.


Evidence is presented, the foundation for the study was based in the Bible. It seems to be (I just found out about this today, and haven't read it yet) using scientific evidence to show holes in the "accepted" views.


Well then I suggest that you shell out the $13.59 and read the book. You can post a summary of the arguments here.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well then I suggest that you shell out the $13.59 and read the book. You can post a summary of the arguments here.


Already did, and already said on the post that I would


And yes, I do suspect reviewers on Amazon.com may be a little biased, and don't have any credentials. However, that doesn't mean you should immediatelly dismiss what they say as drivel. As far as a review by peers, the peers seem to be dismissing it (by trying to get it out of the book store) rather then address the arguements presented in it.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
As far as a review by peers, the peers seem to be dismissing it (by trying to get it out of the book store) rather then address the arguements presented in it.


here you go!



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I don't remember where I read it, but it was about this book. How the Grand Canyon couldn't have been created by the Colorado, since it would have had to run upwards for miles and miles in order to manage that. Ergo: impossible according to Michael Moore.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Does this book base its theories on purely religious grounds?
So, this book is banned due to separataion of Church and State?
*just asking
*


except for the fact that separation of church and state does not exist! its not in the constitution, its no where. its simple case precedent. plus, separation of church and state is nowhere practiced. in public libraries or schools.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Moore is a moron who would be a nobody if he wasnt married to a celeb...who cares if disney doesnt want to make his movie...he can find another company to distribute it...simple as that....Disney is a family based movie company...why would they want to make such a politically charged movie in risk of losing a major part of its customers (parents)?...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join