Christian geologist wins fight over Grand Canyon rocks

The National Park Service has finally agreed to let a Christian geologist collect rock samples from the Grand Canyon for research.

Andrew Snelling, who has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney, tried for four years to get permission to collect the samples. The park service only agreed after lawyers with Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit.

“When the government refuses to allow a Christian geologist simply to collect information because it dislikes his views, it undercuts science and violates the law,” said Gary McCaleb, a senior counsel with ADF and one of Snelling’s lawyers.

Park Service officials initially denied Snelling’s request after asking several other scientists to review his proposal. They lambasted his belief in young earth creationism and said he lacked proper scientific credentials. Snelling has served as the geology spokesman for the Creation Science Foundation and is the editor-in-chief of the Answers Research Journal, a professional peer-reviewed journal. Both entities are affiliated with Answers in Genesis, a Christian apologetics organization that supports a young earth view of creation.

Officials refused to grant Snelling’s permit because he didn’t have “a credible scientific track record.” But Snelling and his legal team maintained the denials and delays amounted to religious discrimination. In its response to ADF’s formal complaint, the Park Service acknowledged Snelling’s proposal was “well stated with methods that are similar or equal to standard scientific practice.”

Michael Kitchen, an attorney allied with ADF, commended the government for coming up with a solution that benefited everyone: “Scientists must be allowed to pursue their research, put theories to the test, and reach independent conclusions without the federal government blocking access to data based on a researcher’s religious faith.”

Snelling will be allowed to collect his samples during an Aug. 6 rafting trip. Despite the four-year wait, Park Service officials denied any wrongdoing.

“Issuance of the administrative launch permit neither implies an admission of fault by the NPS nor does it set a precedent for future issuance of administrative launch permits,” a spokesperson told The Atlantic.

Although Snelling’s most recent research request generated a lot of attention, it’s not his first time collecting samples from the Grand Canyon. And next month’s trip is far from his first. Snelling has served as a geologic interpreter on more than 30 river trips through the Grand Canyon since 1992.

Not mutually exclusive

Mainstream media outlets that reported on Snelling’s case sneered at his creationist views, but more and more scientists are concluding evolution can’t answer all their questions. Last week, David Klinghoffer at Discovery Institute highlighted the case of Welsh physicist Brian Josephson, who told an interviewer he’s “80 percent sure” intelligent design played a role in evolution.

“One of the big mistakes of those who attack intelligent design is to regard evolution and God as mutually exclusive, so they say that someone who believes in intelligent design doesn’t believe in evolution, but that’s not the case,” Josephson told Robert Lawrence Kuhn, host of the PBS series Closer to Truth. “Also, I’d say science has disappeared into something political, really, as the statement that 'creationism disguised as science' is a totally false view of what’s happened.”

Josephson won the 1973 Nobel prize in physics and has a long career to bolster the validity of his comments. Unlike Snelling, he can’t be written off as a fringe scientist. Klinghoffer notes Josephson represents something of a trend among older scientists willing at the end of their careers to make controversial statements and admit to beliefs that put them at odds with the broader scientific community. Maybe their example will encourage their younger colleagues to be bold enough to admit Darwin’s theory has evolved into irrelevancy. —L.J.

Pliny the concrete expert

Scientists have discovered the secret ingredients in long-lasting Roman concrete: volcanic ash, lime, and seawater. Roman structures like piers and seawalls have lasted for 2,000 years, despite exposure to sun, rain, and ocean waves. On the other hand, modern concrete, typically made from Portland cement, begins to crumble after a few decades under the elements. The difference? The Romans used a particular type of volcanic ash in their cement that chemically reacted with seawater and strengthened the concrete over time. Soaked in the ocean, the concrete forms crystal structures that replace dissolved minerals.

A team of researchers led by University of Utah geophysicist Marie Jackson used X-rays to study microscopic slices of the Roman concrete and learn its characteristics. Now Jackson is trying to discover the ancient concrete’s complete recipe, which remains unclear, in hopes of learning how to improve modern concrete. Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79) may not have understood cement chemistry, but he apparently knew what he was talking about when he described a cement “dust” that, “as soon as it comes into contact with the waves of the sea and is submerged, becomes a single stone mass, impregnable to the waves and every day stronger.” —Daniel James Devine

Not-so-little lawsuit

A federal judge in Oregon has set a trial date for a lawsuit filed by a group of children against the U.S. government over climate change. The 21 children and young adults sued the Obama administration in 2015, claiming the government encouraged fossil fuel consumption despite the dangers of climate change. The kids also sued three fossil fuel trade groups, but Judge Thomas Coffin released them from the case. The plaintiffs claim the government violated their constitutional right to live in a safe ecosystem. The lawyers hope the courts will legislate environmental regulations from the bench: “Given our excellent panel of experts, and the ongoing problems created by the Trump administration, we believe the court will use the Constitution and the public trust doctrine to protect our climate from further serious damage,” attorney Philip Gregory said in a statement. The case will go to trial in February 2018.—L.J.