Despite how some may interpret it and the unfortunate use of the word "belief",
which does not belong in science discussions or theories.

Like when people ask me if I "believe" there are aliens in the Cosmos. I don't worship
them, so I do not "believe" in them, I merely say that their existence is theoretically
possible. If it turns out they do not exist, I will be surprised (to say nothing of
disappointed), but I will accept the scientific evidence.

From what I have seen of many religions and those of such inclinations in their general
thought processes, especially the fundamentalist ones, they tend to twist themselves
into metaphysical pretzels trying to stick to their dogma no matter how much proof is
shown to the contrary.

As for providing information at such places as National Parks, have you ever tried to
read one of those signs while trying to keep young children from launching themselves
over cliffs or running off into the woods in search of Bigfoot? Add to this general
science knowledge level of your Joe Public and I am not quite sure just how much
good such details would do - though of course they would not be unwelcome by
me, and such places usually do a fair job of giving the public just enough info on
what they are seeing so they "get" it.

Science isn't always perfect in action due to its being utlized by imperfect beings,
but its structure and goals are attuned for the most objective study and outcome.
The key difference between science and religion is that when new facts make older
ideas invalid, science tends to go with the new facts.