GrrlScientist is an evolutionary biologist, ornithologist, aviculturist, birder and freelance science and nature writer. A native of the Pacific Northwest, she relocated from Seattle to NYC with her parrots after earning a BS in Microbiology (emphasis in Virology) and PhD in Zoology (Ornithology) from the University of Washington. In NYC, she was the Chapman Postdoctoral Fellow at the American Museum of Natural History for two years, pursuing part of her "dream" research project by reconstructing a molecular phylogeny of the parrots of the South Pacific islands. GrrlScientist and her five parrots are currently relocating to Germany, where she will continue writing her blog while also writing a book and learning German. (Meanwhile, her parrots will continue to nibble on her extensive personal library.) If you appreciate GrrlScientist's writing, you can help pay her living expenses by hiring her to "blog" your conference, speak at your club or write articles for your publication (or by clicking on the Paypal button below). If you read an essay on this blog that you especially enjoyed, please nominate it for inclusion in 
tags: science, geology, Grand Canyon, religion, creationism, humor, funny, streaming video
The Grand Canyon is such an icon of the Earth's geological history, of slow and steady uplift, erosion, submergence and deposition, that the creationist crowd thought it essential to tackle it head on. So they have come up with an explanation as to how it might have got there in a world created only 6,000 years ago. Their attempts to squeeze this majestic testament to natural processes into bronze age mythology are not just clumsy, they're the stuff good comedy is made of [10:03]
Physical Science
Education
Comments
This is a nice way to learn geology. 2 parts fun, 1 part real science.
Posted by: Who Cares | July 20, 2009 10:43 AM
For one horrible moment I expected to be watching an ID production. Thankfully not.
One could go a little further than this short, and point out how the Creationists are poster children for the dangers of reasoning from analogy. Analogies have their place - in conveying some key points of an idea, laying the ground work for a teaching experience, etc. i.e., their usefulness is descriptive. Not prescriptive. Mixed in with starting from analogy is starting from unexamined and erroneous statements and using them as axiomatically TRUE for the ensuing "proof". Yes, they say "if A then B", but then studiously ignore the fact that their A is actually and demonstrably FALSE, instead taking it as proof that B is TRUE.
Now I think of it, I do not recall them ever using a construct other than "if A then B". Maybe it sounds too close to English? Maybe the others (constructs) do not? What part of A -> B is it that they miss?
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | July 20, 2009 7:23 PM
The stupid - it deluges!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 21, 2009 9:45 AM