Supporters answer the call
Here are two examples of AiG supporters who have already shown us they’ve ‘answered the call’ to do what they can to stop censorship at the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, USA. Their letters are below. You can help, too!
Dear NPS Director
I gather that you are being asked to censor a book in your National Park bookstores either by removing it completely or moving it from the 'natural sciences' section. The book is called 'Grand Canyon: A Different View' compiled by Tom Vail.
Many of us in Europe look to the USA as a champion of liberty and free speech and it horrifies me that a book that challenges the current paradigm in geology should excite such hostility from people who ought to know better. My own continent was torn apart in the first half of the 20th century by intolerant people who had no respect for the beliefs and views of others.
The very essence of freedom in democracy is the defense of minorities whose views don't coincide with our own. To suppress a book that offers a different scientific paradigm smacks of tyranny and bigotry.
Please resist this unwarranted and unprincipled attack on the freedom of speech through the written word.
Dear Ms. Mainella:
It has come to my attention that a controversy has stirred over a book called "Grand Canyon: A Different View." I am disturbed that our taxpayer-supported national park system is considering giving in to an effort at censorship led by supposedly open-minded, truth-seeking scientists whose worldview, in actuality, does not allow them to consider any other interpretation of observable facts besides their evolutionary one. Science is about studying observable evidence and then seeking to find the best explanation to fit those observations. Many evolutionists seem to be fearful of and hostile to any alternative explanation other than their own. Their claim that this book presents an unscientific religious belief as science, is erroneous. Many of the essays in the book were written by scientists with doctorate degrees who have themselves conducted serious research of the Grand Canyon. Science is about discovery. America is about freedom. Visitors to the Grand Canyon should have the freedom to select from books offering various points-of-view so that they can discover the possible explanations for the Grand Canyon's formation and decide for themselves which view is correct. Do the scientists who object to this book think that people are not intelligent and capable enough to weigh the evidences and come to their own conclusions? Are they so arrogant as to think that the public should not be exposed to any other view but their own? Should we allow any aspect of the scientific community to determine what the public should and should not be allowed to know about? Should they be allowed to stifle a healthy discourse between opposing views? I think not. In closing I would ask that you please not allow this attempt at censorship and book banning to occur. Please continue to stock this book in the natural sciences section of the bookstore, for the good of all.
Renee Van Valkenburgh