There is a controversy at the California State University where scientist Mark Armitage claims that he was fired for his creationist beliefs as an evangelical Christian. Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. The school is investigating his claim of religious discrimination.
In his lawsuit, Armitage details his publications and research including the heralded discovery in 2012 of the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Montana. The fossil then revealed an even more exciting discovery, soft tissue with what appeared to be live bone cells or osteocytes.
Armitage argued that the cells show would have long ago “decayed into nothingness” if it was millions years old. For creationists the point could not be more significant to suggest that the Earth is only a few thousand years old as stated in the bible. However, just days after the article was published, Armitage was fired.
While the university claimed that his temporary position was eliminated due to a budget shortfall, Armitage says that his superior, Dr. Ernest Kwok, was hostile to his religious beliefs and even once allegedly “stormed into” his lab and shouted, “‘We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!!”
While I have long been a critic of creationism and frankly I am a bit surprised to see a scientist clinging to such views, this does raise concerns over academic freedom unless the school can prove the budgetary claim. He is obviously an active and accomplished academic. His paper was published to express his view on the possible meaning of the find. (Note this is not the first such find and scientists have found such cells and, after prior find in fossils of a Tyrannosaurus rex, scientists concluded that the iron in the fossils had preserved the tissue from decay).
The controversy raises an interesting question of when such views are legitimate grounds for termination. For some scientists, a faculty member espousing creationist views is objectively unqualified. However, that would depend on how those views affect his teaching and research. Armitage is clearly functioning at a high level in this field, including the discovery and study of rare fossils. He is simply reaching a conclusion based on those findings that reflects a very small percentage of scientists. At what point does such minority views impact the status of an academic?
Armitage has a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University
He is currently listed as part of Creation Ministries. The site confirms what many would consider the distortive impact of faith on science:
“The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches.”
“In his lawsuit, Armitage details his publications and research including the heralded discovery in 2012 of the largest triceratops horn ever recovered from the world-famous Hell Creek Formation in Glendive, Montana. The fossil then revealed an even more exciting discovery, soft tissue with what appeared to be live bone cells or osteocytes.” – JT
The scientist heading up the Triceratops research at Hell Creek says that the location has material showing an evolution of the Triceratops over a couple of million years:
(Research Provides New Insights into Evolution of Triceratops).
The two positions, a 4,000 year old Triceratops per Armitage, and Scannella who says the bones found show 2 or so million years of evolution of the Triceratops, the most recent being the top layer of fossils, the oldest being the deeper layers, as would be expected.
The only way to reconcile the two positions is to argue that the Triceratops survived the Fifth Mass Extinction, 65mya, caused by the Chicxulub asteroid cum meteorite impact on the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico.
Armitage would have had to find his specimen in the top layer, would have to scientifically rule out any contamination by other organic sources, and then explain any differences in other bones of that dinosaur at that level which did not have the osteocytes.
Dave, I thought Steve H was trying to be ironic – his post proved itself.
If a history professor wrote a paper on the existence of unicorns in Atlantis right before Joseph Smith found his golden plates, I think the history department would have legitimate reason to part ways.
I would imagine the views of a professor matter, particularly when teaching. And a class on paleontology is not a religious class.
And a BS from Liberty University? It’s BS all right.
Steve H: Pre-emptive whining is not an argument.
Here is an interesting story of a similar type (with the same lack of proof for either side). The guy says he was fired for pushing a gay agenda by writing about homophones
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58236366-90/says-english-homophones-language.html.csp
“Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago. ” – JT
That is no reason to fire him, even if peers conclude differently after examining the data, especially the “soft tissue.”
If it became a habit, and if he was proven scientifically wrong time and again, that would indicate scientific incompetence, and they would have grounds.
At this moment we have one persons word claiming the head of his department running into his office shouting about the guys religious beliefs and the school claiming it was a temporary position & he was just let go. I’ll leave aside my personal belief that no rational adult would run around giving people cause to sue and say we need a bit more information.
The person that should be fired is the one who actually hired a ‘scientist’ with a degree from Liberty U.
Armitage recently published a paper where he suggested that soft tissue that he found in a triceratops suggested that the animal died no more than 4000 years ago rather than the common view putting extinction at 65 million years ago.
= = =
I would have hoped that the University would have afforded him an opportunity to have his thesis examined by having it peer reviewed if this is the basis of the termination. I’m guessing the university keeps budgetary records…
The dreaded “budget shortfall” effect…
… Well, there’s always Hogwarts.
Why do we continue to give these childish beliefs such standing?
It isn’t discrimination to say his nonsense religious belief is science, it isn’t
it is nonsense
But we contort ourselves because bugga bugga it’s a “sacred” religious belief It is nonsense, he can believe what he wants but the school is being reasonable-fire his ass it is bad science we don’t have to include bad science based in fantasy -that isn’t discrimination
we don’t have to include this religious nonsense in the secular world keep it in your fantasy Jesus land
” Let the investigation center on the assertions made in his science, which will undoubtedly be proven to be in error. And for that, he should be dismissed, unless of course he would recant.”
If getting it wrong is grounds for dismissing a scientist then we are going to have to fire them all.
They ain’t none of ’em that get it right all the time.
As for recanting, have you read any good recantations lately, or ever? Me nether. I think scientific fraud is the only time I ever heard of a journal withdrawing an article.
In science the issue is not whether you get it wrong but how you respond when results falsify the hypothesis.
If you cannot specify problems with his data or flaws in his reasoning and his arguments then your objections to his conclusions are not based on science.
You cannot use the man’s religion to make a scientific criticism of his work. This guy is either using scientific principles in his work or he is not. If he is a scientist, he either made a mistake or he has found something very interesting. You either take a scientific approach to criticize his work or you don’t.
What the man does in church is irrelevant to his scientific work. It is what he does in the lab that counts. If there is a problem with what he does in the lab then let them make the case.
Steve H.:
Unless you are given to prejudgment, in which event your views are of no moment in any event, your conclusion regarding a lack of “intelligent, mature discussions” on the subject matter of this thread would have application only to your own comment, inasmuch as you were the first poster.
Your belief that the rejection of creationism as a scientific theory is an attack on religion is uninformed. My particular branch of Christianity, for example, has been around longer than any of the others and finds no theological incompatability with evolutionary science.
With respect to Prof. Armitage, if he was in fact terminated for teaching creationism as science, the university is on solid ground since he is, after all, a science teacher. If he was terminated for his religious beliefs, that is a different matter entirely. All we know at present is what has been alleged.
The last part of this piece informs us that Mr Amitage is a graduate of Liberty University which was founded by Evangelist Jerry Falwell. Which leads me to wonder what their Science Department is like.
I go with intelligent design. Many times when I’m debating evolutionists, they recklessly try to attach my beliefs to the Bible. Some of the same reckless stuff may be going on here with Armitage. Lifting a paragraph from Creation Ministries to characterize this guy is not unlike characterizing all Catholics as pro life. I really need more to go on before hanging him. Dr. Ernest Kwok seems the real nut case here, for storming into a classroom and disciplining Armitage in front of students. That’s just something unheard of in a professional world, acting like a jackbooted stormtrooper. There may be more reason to dismiss Kwok than Armitage. Kwok seems like a guy who has zero tolerance for all views except is own. Some of us know him real well.
Personal bias brought into scientific research can skew the results regardless of which side of the debate you are on. I’m curious to know if he has published research proving creationism might be false. (If this was already stated I apologize.)
If you can teach classes in an objective manner, without pushing your religious dogma on students, having out-of-the-mainstream religious views should not, by itself, disqualify you from holding this type of position. Regarding his publication(s) (which I’ve not read), if he is arguing that the tissue is only 4,000 years old “cuz the Bible sez”, his scholarship has devolved into squalorship and he deserves to be let go. I wonder if CSU was aware of the nature of his religious beliefs when they hired him.
This employment issue could likely come down to a Due Process or Fair Employments Standards case.
Well, I am a Christian and I feel there is zero basis to the 6, 000 year old world stuff. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, not his actual diary. What this story points out is the impracticality of some discrimination laws.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Creation Ministries…’Nuff said. Who wants to pay for an expensive education to learn stuff taught in church? Keep the Creation myths where they belong. It not science.
This guy is nuts. No two ways about it. Religion often conflicts with science. Where so, either one is wrong, the other is wrong or both are wrong. But 4,000 years is impossible. His data cannot be correct. His inherent creationism is showing, not any scientific objectivity. Let the investigation center on the assertions made in his science, which will undoubtedly be proven to be in error. And for that, he should be dismissed, unless of course he would recant.
OK, lefties and others who are intolerant of a) anyone who doesn’t think as you do and b) anyone who is religious, start the attacks and childish smears. I’ll pass on reading that gibberish as I’m looking for intelligent, mature discussions; won’t find them here, today.