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.”
We don’t have all the facts yet. So far…we have only Armitage’s side of the story. It’s best to get the university’s side/explanation before we make a judgment regarding Armitage’s claims and accusations.
When the Sumerian clay tablets were discovered, not one person so far has denied they had been etched by intelligent beings or argued the manuscripts were random consequence of chance in the universe. But if someone stumbles across clay tablets that have the entire human genome etched on them, evolutionists would deny intelligence had a hand, lining up on one side of a line drawn in the sand, while pro-ID and creationist folks stand against them on the other side. It’s as though an electrical switch was flipped, electromagnetically separating the negatively charged evolutionists from the positively charged pro-ID and creationist folks. Only Kool Aid explains this evolutionist phenomenon. Why else would someone deny the logic, bringing onto themselves the stigma of having a mental disorder, with absolutely no shame in it for them?
semby:
When you find those posts in which Prof. Turley is defending teachers who “sexually assault their students and do other heinous things,” be sure to get back to us.
Semby, he was paid to teach science, no? Was he paid to teach theology?
Mark Armitage was a part-time/”at-will” employee of a university. He didn’t have tenure. As far as I know, he hadn’t signed a contract to teach at the school for a specified number of years. Such employees can be let go at anytime–and from what I understand–without cause.
Elaine – the claim by the school is that he is ‘at-will.’ However, even at will employees have rights in the CSU system.
So teachers can sexually assault their students and do other heinous things and NOT get fired; but you preach about faith; now that’s a firing offense.
Good is bad; bad is good.
Thank you Professor Turley for highlighting this to all of us.
Squeeky:
The problem is not with simplistic religious belief. The problem is that those “straw men,” as you call them, have last names like Inhofe and Gohmert and Smith, and dictate congressional policy on science issues.
Paul, Actually I took a peek at the article. The author explains correct form and how the “scientific” article complies, sort of.
Paul, Elaine provided an excerpt from an article. Your question goes to the author of the article.
bettykath – my question was to Elaine.
bigfatmike, Your entire comment is excellent.
Elaine – and you know the correct form for scientific articles because????
Here’s an interesting column about some of Armitage’s “scientific” research that was published in a “journal.”
They call this “science”?
4/2/2008
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/02/they-call-this-science/
Excerpt:
The Institute for Creation Research is a treasure trove of sloppy pseudoscience. I mentioned one “research” article that they put out that was nothing but a flurry of bible verses wrapped around an argument from incredulity; now a reader has pointed me to another article that tries very hard to ape the form of a real scientific paper, and fails horribly.
It’s titled “COMPLEX LIFE CYCLES IN HETEROPHYID TREMATODES: STRUCTURAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DESIGN IN THE ASCOCOTYLE COMPLEX OF SPECIES”, by Mark Armitage. Oooh. Sounds so sciencey. And then you read further, and you see that it almost follows the correct form.
Well, people have been poking fun at “simplistic” Christians since Mark Twain and earlier. There are some people who do not do well with “grays” and “maybes” and “probablys” so they have to narrow down God to their level of understanding and make every word of the Bible literally true. But that is not the way all Christians are, nor is it what every Christian believes. But those simplistic Christians make a great straw man and whipping boy for the scoffers.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Let us think through this timeline (approx. years).
– The universe, Earth, humans, dinosaurs, and asteroids were all created 6,000 years ago (4000BC).
– Humans and dinosaurs live simultaneously for 2,000 years until either:
A. Dinosaurs–like all species–are saved from a global flood on a giant boat and exist to this day;
B. All species except dinosaurs are saved on a giant boat; or
C. A massive asteroid strikes Earth and destroys dinosaurs, but humans survived (2000BC).
– 500 years later (1500BC) the history of creation and human genealogy is dictated and recorded, but a few pesky details about those big lizards are neglected.
It all makes sense now.
Charlie – there is some new thinking on the demise of the dinosaur. Instead of a great meteor strike, they (some scientists in the arena) are now adding several other probable causes.
His findings show it was 4000 years old not 4, 40, 400, 40000, 400,000 or even 400 million years old. Liberty university grad, creationist and member of the Creation Ministries. Hmmmm. Please don’t fuss if I jump the gun and say this guy’s science is shoddy at best and he twisted facts to meet a preconceived notion. No, I did not read his paper nor will I do so. When chemists, geologists, biologists and the remaining bulk of scientists across every disciple conclude that, yes, the earth is only several thousand years old, then and only then, will I go back and read his ground breaking/earth shattering paper. He deserves the same ridicule heaped on members of the Flat Earth Society. I hope the California State University System doesn’t have any of them on their Geography Department too.
” Please don’t fuss if I jump the gun and say this guy’s science is shoddy at best and he twisted facts to meet a preconceived notion. ”
On the other hand, only science can refute his paper. Religion – his or anyone else’s – cannot tell us anything about the scientific validity of his results.
1. Maybe is sample really is from the species he claims and really is 4,000 years old. There is no general principle of science that would prevent that from being true. The claim seems unlikely to me. But only science can tell us if the claim is supported by the evidence or not. Science cannot dismiss a claim simply because the probability is remote. If you really believe we can use science to simply dismiss an unlikely claim then perhaps you would care to outline, in principle, how to use science to prove there are no white crows in the universe.
2. Maybe the sample was misidentified and is from some other species that lived about 4,000 years old. That possibility would invalidate his claim but much of scientific technique – the dating process – would be valid.
3. Maybe the sample is from the species he claims but is much older. That would suggest that his dating technique is flawed. Dating techniques for really old samples are much less reliable and precise than most people realize. If he made a mistake in dating the sample that puts him in the same boat with many other scientists. As a matter of fact some of the really interesting issues in palaeontology revolve around dating techniques and their application to specific situations or samples.
4. Maybe his sample is from the species he claims but was subjected to some unusual process that makes it appear to be about 4,000 years old – despite being much older – when subjected to the usual dating techniques. That would invalidate his results. But it would also be a very interesting situation worthy of additional research.
5. Maybe he committed scientific fraud. But the article does not mention fraud and no one has presented evidence to suggest that.
The nature of science is that most results will be invalidated. The fate of most scientists is necessarily to be proven wrong.
If Mann’s technique is sloppy of he has an agenda that ought to be easy to demonstrate from his work. It ought to be obvious but it bears remarking, there is no way to demonstrate his work is sloppy or he has an agenda without examining his work.
It is only by examining his work for flaws in his data, errors in his calculations or fallacies in his reasoning that we can demonstrate problems with his science. If we cannot show problems with his data, calculations or reasoning then he has presented us with a situation worthy of serious research.
Thanks for that link Elaine, no wonder they fired him. Looks like he had an agenda to prove that the earth was created by an omnipotent being 6 thousand years ago. I hope students get a refund on their tuition for his class.
Annie – Michael Mann has an agenda and he has not been fired.
Soft tissue found on T. Rex explained
CBS News
11/28/13
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/soft-tissue-found-on-t-rex-explained/
Elaine – is CBS News a peer-reviewed publication?
It must be hard being an evangelical Christian in a nation where almost every member of Congress (more than the population at large) is a Christian or at least religious to some extent. About 5-10% of Americans don’t believe in a god, but not one member of COngress comes out as a clear non-believer.
Jerome,
I believe that Rep. Stark from California became the first openly atheist member of Congress a few years back.
JT
jim, Ridicule is the go to play in the liberal playbook. Squeeky posted a video on the GAO thread, you will love it.
Regarding this guy, I am not qualified to say if what this guy is using is junk science or not. I am secure enough to say, “I don’t know” when indeed I don’t know.
Nick – there is no one who is saying his findings are flawed. Only his conclusions. This is not the first time this sort of thing has been found.
Nick,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn’t trying to imply that you said he did junk science, My thinking is I find it weird that many here knee jerk to the use of the phrase “junk science” when they haven’t read his research or know how he came to his conclusions. I was asking you in your professional opinion if you see anything from what we know about this guy if he used “junk science”.