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.”
leejcaroll – ”They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.”
Jim 22 said: Yea, blame creationism for the decline of our schools.You say. You need to learn some critical reading skills. I did not say anything of the sort. I wrote specifically about the issue of science and teaching something that is out of line with the rest of the world and scientific community.”
Lee, I don’t want creationism taught in the science class either, but to think that, that is a major issue/concern with our school system is the least of our worries. I would say the liberalization of education is more of a threat. Teach the fundamentals and stop worrying about two daddy/two mommy families and that everyone is a winner. Learning isn’t all about fun, it is work, hard work at times and there are winners and losers.
Jim22 – I was watching a rerun of Numbers last night and they were talking about The Old One creating the Higgs-Boson. Is this creationism? I believe in an Uncaused Cause and when science can prove there is no Uncaused Cause I will move on. Still, this is a form of creationism.
Nick, Stop making sense.
leejcaroll
“Jim you have the right to send your kids to parochial school ut you also have a responsibility to pay taxes that allow most kids to get an education. I do not have children. I pay a hefty school tax every year because those kids are the ones who will be the doctors, engineers, teachers, etc for me as I age, for my children if I had any etc. It is a responsibility to the society as a whole that we ensure our kids are educated.”
First let me state that my kids are already out of school so I am arguing this point after the fact. Not that I necessarily agree that if you don’t have kids you should still pay for other people private decisions like having kids. But fine, then how about when my kids are of school age I don’t have to pay school taxes but instead pay for where they go private or parochial and then after they graduate the the govt. can return to stealing my property again? Why should I have to pay twice for a choice away from the monopoly?
Jim22 – the retirees in Sun City, AZ refused to pass enough bond issues for the school district they were in that the school district finally set new boundaries with Sun City on the outside. Now they pay no school property taxes.
rafflaw, I think schools should be supported by a consumption tax, not property taxes.
Jim you have the right to send your kids to parochial school ut you also have a responsibility to pay taxes that allow most kids to get an education. I do not have children. I pay a hefty school tax every year because those kids are the ones who will be the doctors, engineers, teachers, etc for me as I age, for my children if I had any etc. It is a responsibility to the society as a whole that we ensure our kids are educated.
Follow
If he was fired for this… Then he should be reinstated…. If other issues…. Well…. Good riddance….
Max-1, Sure. I have no issue with people worshiping whatever they want, even a mock religion. If it makes them happy cool.
rafflaw, I get it, your idea of choice is having to pay twice or quit my job. That’s not really a choice. Even worse, you can’t even choose a different public school that you feel is better because the monopoly won’t let you. It’s weird to me that libs love the choice to kill a fetus, but any other choice, no way. You have to use this light bulb, toilet, school, healthcare, etc….
Jim22,
Yes you do have the right to send your kids to parochial school or to home school them. And if you own real estate you will have real estate taxes which cover municipal and county and township expenses along with park districts and school district expenses.
Jimm22
Like this?
Pastafarian wins one for the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Texas
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pastafarian-recognized-texas-id-article-1.1436608
Wait a minute. Cal State is not a school, Cal State is a redistribution program. It redistributes the wealth of the taxpayer to students who don’t want to pay tuition and union teachers who strike the “deep pockets” of the taxpayers to obtain absurd levels of pay (their governmental worker colleagues then get “comparable pay”).
There is no constitutional mandate for taxpayers to pay for another person’s tuition; no logic either. Taxpayers aren’t mandated by the Constitution to pay for other people’s houses, entertainment, food, clothes, cars, vacations, recreation, dentist, golf clubs, etc. Ridiculous.
Cal State doesn’t exist as a legitimate business in the education industry, Cal State is a nonviable, insolvent ward of the state but for the compulsory funding by the taxpayer. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the redistribution of taxpayer dollars are foreigners.
Pity the parasitic teachers and students who were never taught life’s most important lessons: self-reliance and endeavor. In California, they believe education and everything they desire is free. The one party, communist, people’s republic of California. Decent people would be embarrassed to be on the public dole at such preposterous rates.
Parasitism is a good life, right, Comrades?
Annie, No it’s not my right to send my kids to parochial school. The govt. has a monopoly on education. I am not allowed to stop paying public school taxes and send my kids were ever I want. If we were allowed to do that, that would be awesome.
I’m also not advocating teaching any particular God in school, just stating that God has been pushed out to the point where the side that preaches tolerance, won’t even tolerate anyone wearing anything that depicts their personal religion of choice.
Whose God should be allowed to be present in schools? Allah, Buddha, Zoroaster? If you want the Christian God in your child’s school, send them to parochial school, that’s your right.
leejcaroll – ”
They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.”
Yea, blame creationism for the decline of our schools. What a joke! I am not a creationist but to think it is the reason for the decline is well, just stupid. The libs have run the school system for decades now so they own the decline. Especially when you add the fact that you all have a coronary when a teacher does something like wear a cross to school. Which is their constitutional right by the way. I would also add that the complete opposite is most likely true. Ever since the libs took over they have pushed God out of the schools and replaced it with the state, removed discipline, removed competition and made everyone a winner and done more to hurt math and science with curriculum’s that teach 4/3 doesn’t equal 1.33333…
leejcaroll – ”
They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.”
Jim 22 said: Yea, blame creationism for the decline of our schools.You say. You need to learn some critical reading skills. I did not say anything of the sort. I wrote specifically about the issue of science and teaching something that is out of line with the rest of the world and scientific community.
“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.” Dred
Apparently M. Armitage is no stranger to scientific incompetence. He has used other specious claims for a young earth. He claims the presence of radiohalos in diamonds discounts the millions of years required for its formation thus a young earth. He is well known to the young earth/old earth crowd and a Michael Behe wannabe. Check out wiki evolution. He’s a creationist crackpot. He and the person who hired him should be drummed out the university.
Michael – that Armitage is a creationist does not make him a crackpot. Michael Mann uses proprietary data to make claims about climate change. Data he refuses to let others see. Is he a crackpot?
looked up and no this is not the first Dinosaur with flesh found on it. I read the research there. So I was wrong on that point I never heard of it until that point. The article somehow suggests that the iron allowed the collagen to be preserved for millions of years? That is not controversial? I would beg to differ. But on the point of another Dinosaur being found with flesh I was wrong. I can at least admit that. Blindly excepting answers handed out dose not serve science it allows the debate to quelled with out any one else having a say. Either the tissue is not as old as science is saying it is or this iron theory could hold some merit but there is no way to duplicate millions of years of weather, pressure, microbe activity and 100 other factors that would have to go into something lasting that long. So to say that this is not controversial or is not that controversial is drinking the cool aid
My planet has been spying on your planet Earth for more than ten thousand years. You have had many charletons come along in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost. On the way in to Earth I always look on the clouds to see if there are any angels who made it up that way to your “Heaven”. There is some microsoft and google information up there but no former humans. If some schmuck purports to study science but he is hung up on the holy grail then you must fire him toute suite. We are from France.
They want to teach creationism in the high and middle schools. No matter where you fall on the argument the US has already fallen behind in science. Teaching creationism leaves our students even farther behind in a world where where creationism is not considered scientific or science.
Just to be clear, I am a creationist and believe that God created the heavens and the earth. However, in these case were talking about 4000- 65 million years. I looked it up, it can take a few days to several months for a body as large as an elephant to decompose. So even in the case of 4000 years soft tissue remains seem daunting. Because no one wants to look at this with any type of objectivity I guess me the creationist will.
To be frank everything about this stinks. Nothing makes logical sense. Soft tissue should not be available. Dating techniques are not especially accurate. Anyone who is honest will tell you there is flaws. But for me the find itself that should be called into question.
It is a triceratops horn, with soft tissue that is 4000 – 65 million years old. Not matter what side you fall in on this would almost be impossible to believe. The tissue being preserved that long just dose not seem possible. Obviously we do not have any dinosaurs running around today as they were, but this just does not add up.
Either the find is questionable or it would seem by a miracle that the tissue was preserved that long at all. For those of you who think this could have lasted millions of years….well you go with that I cannot help you. However, dating it 4000 years is still gutsy at best especially given decomposition just dose not take that long, especially of tissues.
Now before people start quoting what can effect decomposition rates, keep in mind until this find NO OTHERS HAVE BEEN FOUND WITH IT. There is no need to try and give me a president when no others have been set. Don’t feed me the mammoths frozen in ice this was not found in a glacier. Obviously, there is not debate this is a triceratops horn; the enigma remains how the issue was preserved so long.
In any case that is what deserves the attention. The find, we can debate the outcome but not the find until there is evidence to suggest tampering or it could be from something else. Once someone can tell me how something could have lived so long ago and still have preserved tissue
How old the tissue is at this point seems irrelevant, or at least a mute point because IT IS STILL THERE. Until someone can give me a definitive answer on that I could care less about the age, that data is debatable at best.
I think Elaine M. at 12:13 referred us to a news article that tells us there are other examples of soft tissue preservation and that the accepted hypothesis is that iron, presumably from the body of the animal, acted as a preservative.
Preservation of soft tissue for millions of years, which the article points out usually takes place in a short period of time, apparently is not controversial.
In what journal was this professor’s paper published? I seriously doubt it was published in a credible peer-reviewed scientific publication if his paper includes any speculation that the fossil remains are no more than 4000 years old.
dogfightwithdogma – it had the same peer-review qualities that Michael Mann demands for his articles.