few years ago, after more than fifteen years of presenting the evolutionary development of the canyon, I started examining the creationist view of how the canyon came to be. Although this examination was for personal reasons, it has become an integral part of my normal interpretation, and with surprising results. I never realized that a fair number of folks have been sitting quietly listening to my ‘millions of years' explanation of the formation of the canyon, but not buying a bit of it. Why? Because it goes against their faith. With that in mind, I now try to present both sides of the story.
When you really start to look at the two models, evolutionist vs. creationist, it is a matter of faith. Since no one was around when the earth was formed, nobody can say for certain how this big hole in the ground came about. So from where we sit today, what you believe depends on which book you believe in. You can find evolutionary-based books dating the Vishnu Schist from 700,000 to 1,700,000 years old with a variety of theories of how it was formed. The sedimentary layers fall into the same category with a number of ideas on their ages and formation.
Creationists, on the other hand, read a different book. They date the schist at from 7,000 to 10,000 years old. (Interestingly, there is about the same percentage of variance in age in both models.) They generally agree that the sedimentary layers were laid down as a result of the receding of a global flood but vary on the timing and mechanics of the how. The most popular theory is that they were deposited as the result of large upstream dams being breached after the flood receded.
There are intelligent, well-educated and sincere people in both camps and both are able to shoot holes in the other's theories, or really, beliefs. For example, the creationists point to the fact that there isn't any chemical erosion between the layers. (Ever wonder why there is such a smooth line between layers?) And the evolutionists point to the fact that some layers have large transition zones between them. (How did a flood do that?)
Ivo Lucchitta, a usgs geologist, gave me a few words of interpretative wisdom many years ago that I still use today. He said, “Something happened a long time ago to make it look that way.” It's a fact that none of us really knows how this place, that we all love, came to be. So how do we as guides, whose interpretation is often taken as fact, do an objective job of interpreting the geology? Seems only fair to me that we be prepared, at least at some level, to present both sides of the issue.
There are a variety of resources available to research the subject. The library, bookstores and of course the Internet have a mass of information on any part of the subject. It's easy to do and it addresses our passengers' faith, not ours.

Tom Vail