A
geologist is suing the National Park Service and its operations at Grand Canyon
National Park because officials there refused him permission to do ordinary
research due to his “Christian faith and scientific viewpoints informed by
his Christian faith.”Andrew
Snelling, who works with Answers in Genesis
The
case was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of
Andrew Snelling, who works with Answers in Genesis.
AIG
said in a statement: “Apparently, Dr. Snelling’s most recent research
project on behalf of a high-profile group (AiG) was deemed a threat to the
prevailing viewpoint of the canyon’s formation and timing. The language used by
park officials and its reviewers to describe Dr. Snelling’s proposal decry that
a Christian and creationist seeks to do the research.”
The
group said Snelling’s proposed study “could yield results that will
undermine an idea that is heavily promoted inside the park: namely, that the
canyon’s strata were formed over millions of years.
“With
his intended research, Dr. Snelling seeks to gather samples at folds inside
the canyon where all the layers were bent, but were not shattered because
the rocks were still soft as they folded – supposedly remaining soft over a
period of 450 million years.”
Snelling
said the case “is all about giving the freedom for a scientist to do good
science without having to undergo a religious litmus test.”
“The
samples I have been blocked from collecting in the GCNP are to be subjected to
routine lab processing and investigations any good scientist would perform,” he
said. “The results are to be openly reported for all scientists to draw
their own conclusions, whether or not they agree with my worldview
interpretation of the history of the Earth.”
ADF
noted Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the internationally acclaimed
University of Sydney and has conducted geological research in Australia
and the United States. He has published works in peer-reviewed journals and has
substantial field and laboratory experience with both theoretical and practical
geological research.
“Nonetheless,
National Park Service officials denied his routine request to obtain a few
fist-sized rock samples from the Grand Canyon after learning of his Christian
views about the Earth’s beginnings,” ADF said. “Despite the fact that Dr.
Snelling had accomplished prior research in the canyon, Park officials ran him
through a gamut of red tape for more than three years.”
ADF
Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb noted scientists will always look at data and
challenge one another’s interpretations.
“Such
disagreement is how science works. But when the government starts refusing
access to even collect the information because it dislikes one scientist’s
views, it undercuts science and violates the law,” he said.
ADF
Allied Attorney Michael Kitchen said the case “perfectly illustrates why
President Trump had to order executive agencies to affirm religious freedom,
because park officials specifically targeted Dr. Snelling’s religious faith as
the reason to stop his research.”
“The
government isn’t allowed to discriminate against someone based on their
viewpoint, and National Park officials have absolutely no legal justification
in stopping a scientist from conducting research simply because they don’t
agree with his views,” he said. “Using someone’s views to screen them for
a government benefit is unconstitutional.”
Scientists
who conduct research in the park must explain their objectives and obtain
a permit.
However,
in Snelling’s case, the lawsuit explains, permit coordinator Ronda Newton
insisted on two peer reviews of his plans.
He
provided three, all recommending his work.
But
then Newton went to additional lengths and asked for the opinion of a professor
from the University of New Mexico, Karl Karlstrom, who demonstrated “antipathy
for Dr. Snelling’s religious faith and the religious views of the scientists
who provided peer reviews on behalf of Dr. Snelling.”
Newton
sought another opinion from Peter Huntoon of the University of Wyoming, who
worked with Karlstrom on various projects.
He
condemned Snelling’s plan, arguing “ours is a secular society as per our
constitution (sic)” and suggested “inappropriate interests” should be “screened
out.”
The
park wanted to require Snelling first to travel through the
canyon and obtain GPS coordinates of locations he wanted to research
before obtaining a permit.
“The
actual reason behind the rejection was because of Dr. Snelling’s Christian
faith and scientific viewpoints informed by his Christian faith,” the lawsuit
charges.
Defendants
are Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, National Park Director Michael Reynolds,
Regional Director Sue Masica and park Supt. Christine S. Lehnertz.
Snelling
said: “We expect debate about what the evidence means, but the Park shouldn’t
prevent us from collecting data just like other scientists. I am merely asking
for equal treatment by the government.”
He
had proposed collecting about 40 small samples from inside the canyon. But
after throwing up multiple obstacles, the park eventually quit responding to
Snelling and then refused to respond to a question from Rep. Trent Franks,
R-Ariz., on behalf of Snelling.
In
its statement, AIG pointed to President Trump’s executive order May 4 affirming
the executive branch’s intent to “vigorously enforce federal law’s robust
protections for religious freedom.”
“The
primary defendant in the Snelling lawsuit is the Department of the Interior,
which manages America’s national parks,” AIG said. “The DOI falls under
the purview of President Trump’s executive branch of government.”
Ken
Ham, president of AiG, explained his scientist is “just asking for equal access
to the canyon and not be stonewalled.”
“The
case is about good science being practiced by a good scientist who is being
blocked by intolerant government bureaucrats. They have shown a clear animosity
toward a researcher’s faith and want to trample on his civil rights.”
WND
could not reach the park office at the Grand Canyon for comment.
