How old is the Grand Canyon? Most scientists agree with the version that rangers at Grand Canyon National Park tell visitors — that the 10-mile wide chasm in northern Arizona was carved by the Colorado River 5 million to 6 million years ago.
Now, however, a book in the park's bookstores tells another story. On sale since last summer, "Grand Canyon: A Different View," by veteran Colorado River guide Tom Vail, asserts that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Old Testament flood, the one Noah's Ark survived, and can be no older than a few thousand years.
The book includes essays from creationists and theologians. In the introduction, Vail wrote, "For years, as a Colorado River guide I told people how the Grand Canyon was formed over the evolutionary time scale of millions of years. Then I met the Lord. Now, I have a different view of the Canyon, which according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than a few thousand years old."
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.
"I've had reactions from the staff all over the board on it," said park Deputy Supt. Kate Cannon. "There were certainly people on the interpretive staff that were upset by it. Respect of visitors' views is imperative, but we do urge our interpreters to give scientifically correct information."
Park Service spokesman David Barna, who is based in Washington, said each park determined which products were sold in its bookstores and gift shops. The creationist book at the Grand Canyon was unanimously approved by a new-product review panel of park and gift shop personnel.
But the book's status at the park is still in question. Grand Canyon's superintendent, Joe Alston, has sought guidance from Park Service headquarters in Washington.
Meanwhile, the book has sold out and is being reordered.
The flap at the Grand Canyon highlights what officials say is a dilemma for the national park system: how to respect visitors' spiritual views that may contradict the agency's accepted scientific presentations and maintain the division of church and state.
"We struggle. Creationism versus science is a big issue at some places," said Deanne Adams, the Park Service's chief of interpretation for the Pacific Region.
Adams said the questions came up most often at Western parks where geology was often highlighted. She singled out John Day Fossil Beds Monument in Oregon as a place where scientifically determined dates have been challenged.
"We like to acknowledge that there are different viewpoints, but we have to stick with the science. That's our training," Adams said. She said there was no federal guideline for how to answer religious inquiries. "Every fundamentalist or Christian group has a take on how they interpret the Bible. They are entitled to believe whatever they believe. It's not our job to change their minds."
Last summer, the Park Service ordered the reinstatement of three plaques bearing Bible verses that had been erected at Grand Canyon National Park in 1970 by a group called the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. Alston called for their removal last summer after a complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Park Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy, who once ran the California State Parks Department, ordered the brass plaques returned and sent the group a letter apologizing for "any intrusion."
The plaques are affixed to buildings at Hermits Rest, Lookout Studio and Desert View Tower, all popular tourist stops along the South Rim. They quote verses from the Book of Psalms, including "Sing to God, sing praises to His name, lift up a song to Him who rides upon the clouds. His name is the Lord, exult before Him!"
Barna said Murphy overruled the Grand Canyon superintendent because he and the agency's regional attorney were not sufficiently versed in constitutional law. "We contend that our superintendent knows a lot about wilderness protection but not enough about separation of church and state," Barna said.
Critics say that by condoning religious material in the park, the federal government is endorsing a particular spiritual point of view.
"The Bush administration appears to be sponsoring a program of faith-based parks," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "Any time a question arises, the professionals and lawyers are reversed and being told to respect the displays of religious symbols. We believe the actions by these officials violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution."
But religion and geology are intertwined in many parks and monuments dotted with shrines and various sites sacred to Native Americans, who are often afforded special access to worship.
Nor are spiritual references absent. Indeed, viewed from the Grand Canyon's popular Bright Angel Trail are rock formations named by 19th century explorers after Hindu deities such as Vishnu.
Some scholars say they have no objection to books that offer religious interpretations of the parks, provided they are not marketed as science.
Historian Stephen J. Pyne, whose book "How the Canyon Became Grand" is also on sale in the park's bookstores, said he did not mind if Vail's book was sold at the park, as long as it was not displayed in the science section. "I have not read the book, but I'm familiar with the genre," Pyne said. "I think the Park Service would be remiss if it did not explain that there is not an agreed-upon story about the canyon, that there are conflicting stories.
But science assumes it was not formed by a great flood or divine intervention. What this creationists group is looking for is some sort of validation by the Park Service. There's an agenda there."
Not so, says an official of the organization that published Vail's book, the Institute for Creation Research. Steven Austin, who heads ICR's geology department, said he worked with Vail on the book. Like Vail, Austin believes the oldest parts of the gorge are no older than 10,000 years. Vail could not be reached for comment.
"We have a secular presentation at the Grand Canyon, and we don't want to suppress other ways of thinking," Austin said. "But there needs to be room for more than one interpretation. It is appropriate to discuss theology, to express a creationist view. As long as all sides are presented, I don't see any problem with it."
George Billingsley, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, has been studying the Grand Canyon for 36 years. He said scientists had never agreed about the exact age of the canyon, although most concurred that the oldest formations were nearly 2 billion years old. A scientific symposium held in 2000 to resolve the question of how the canyon was formed dissolved into acrimony and adjourned without consensus, he said.
As for the creationist theory, Billingsley said: "If someone presented that theory to me, I'd say, you've got to have proof. You have to have some kind of mechanism to show what you say happened. I don't know how to argue with someone like that. But 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, the better."