Any day now, the National Parks Service will release a book contradicting the widely accepted theory that the Grand Canyon was created by years and years of painstaking work on the part of running water. The book will, instead, claim that the canyon was carved out by Noah's Flood.
This recent revelation has led to considerable rage on the part of certain scientific individuals, who claim the government should not support this "Creationist" account of the origin of the Grand Canyon.
A couple of things:
1. I'm pretty sure the NPS has the right to release whatever asinine book they want, just as the credible scientific community will have the right to tear them apart for it. (Which I can't wait for, by the way.)
2. Unless everything I have been taught is wrong, a flood is a geologic process. If a flood is a geologic process, how can Noah's Flood creating the Grand Canyon be a Creationistic argument? Wouldn't the Creationist point of view be that God initially created the canyon, as He created the landscape of the entire Earth, and that the flood just happened to fill it? This is how I understand it, and if this is so, then the book is merely arguing that a geologic process happened in an absurdly quick interval of time, which I suppose they could say was because of God.
But on a similar note, I had a zit the other day, and today it's gone, and zits don't usually go away that fast, so maybe that was God too. You can't prove that it wasn't. Just try.
I do not, in any way, shape or form claim to be any sort of authority on the doctrine of Creationism. The aforementioned is simply what I, in my admitted amount of ignorance, have crafted as an educated assumption of what a Creationist doctrine is. Any information about the true nature of Creationism would be appreciated. Oh, and in case anyone cares, here's my source:
http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14313.shtml
That is all.