Don't like the implications?

[Vaccine]

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29337/

Anyone else see this? Someone just doing their job, discovers soft tissue, publishes it and is fired.

'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!’

It turns out he was a creationist. What that has to do with characterizing what he found and publishing the results I'm not sure. But they sure didn't like the implication of finding soft tissue on a triceratop horn.

 

[Speedwell]

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29337/

Anyone else see this? Someone just doing their job, discovers soft tissue, publishes it and is fired.

'We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!’

It turns out he was a creationist. What that has to do with characterizing what he found and publishing the results I'm not sure. But they sure didn't like the implication of finding soft tissue on a triceratop horn.

Deplorable. The man was definitely a casualty of the culture wars. Scholars and university officials should not behave in that way. But having lived in the "Bible Belt" for a time I can, to a degree, sympathize with their opinion though not their behavior.

The tricertops horn doesn't enter into it. Science can deal with all legitimate evidence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think it could be helpful to have more than just a one-sided opinion on the story; I'm not saying the article is wrong, just that it seems prejudiced in favor of a creationist and presenting this as a creationist being persecuted for his religion because he found something that didn't mesh with established dogma. That might have happened, again not saying it didn't, but I'd like to see more.

Several problems with what I see as presumptions in the presentation:

Soft tissue does not, itself, constitute evidence of a young earth; but this is treated as though that is an assumed given. The appropriate thing should be that if there is, indeed, actual soft tissue that it should pass through the scientific process and be included in the available data. But if this was presented as the all encompassing trump card that "proves" young earth creationism over and against the scrutiny of real science, then there's a problem--it's a problem that seems to be presented in the linked article and also a problem if that was what the professor was trying to do with his find. Science is not reached by assuming a conclusion and whittling evidence down to get there.

So, again, I'd like as much information as possible; because consider me suspicious whenever I encounter the tired "Creationists suffer from the evolutionist establishment" narrative. Creationism isn't science, and has never done anything to merit being called science.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gene2memE]

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29337/

Anyone else see this? Someone just doing their job

Just doing their job my hairy gluteus, he was a creationist plant, put there in the hopes of slipping rubbish past the radar.

discovers soft tissue, publishes it and is fired.

Not quite. Its not the publication of this he was fired for, it was for telling students that the world is only 6000 years old - roughly akin to telling students that "2+2 = 119.6 and a pumpkin" - and misrepresenting himself as a 'biologist' working for California State University Northridge, in creationist talks, presentations and podcasts.

It turns out he was a creationist. What that has to do with characterizing what he found and publishing the results I'm not sure. But they sure didn't like the implication of finding soft tissue on a triceratop horn.

BS. Soft tissue has been known about for 15-20 years.

The creationist dino dig that Mr Armitage was involved in and published on found pliable osteocyte-like microstructures in a Triceratops horn. These were 20 nanometers long...

Many palentolgists have found similar structures in other bones, and their conclusions are radically different from Mr Armitage's - with good reasons.

As to that quote, well its classic creationist quote mining and misrepresentation. The individual reported to have said this was a Dr. Kwok, who is quoted as saying "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!! This is a science department and we will only have science here – none of your creationist projects or your religion."

This was said in June 2012, fully six months before the "soft tissue" paper was published and almost seven months before Mr Armitage was fired.

Me thinks that the university did mess up, but only in hiring Mr Armitage as a lab technician and letting him espouse 6,000 year old earth nonsense to undergraduate students.

 

[USincognito]

Given that we see PRATTs about Nebraska "man", Heackel, etc. on a daily basis, I'm not surprised to see the Armitage the martyr PRATT still circulating. The guy is a fraud, his claims are a fraud and his martyrdom story is a fraud.

 

[Zoii]

Well... just to be accurate.... the article does cite links to the issue. It makes supposition about the implication of the law suit but the reader cant find out why the University had an issue with the publication from original souces because it does say where they got their information. It may be correct... or just nonsense

 

[juvenissun]

I think it could be helpful to have more than just a one-sided opinion on the story; I'm not saying the article is wrong, just that it seems prejudiced in favor of a creationist and presenting this as a creationist being persecuted for his religion because he found something that didn't mesh with established dogma. That might have happened, again not saying it didn't, but I'd like to see more.

Several problems with what I see as presumptions in the presentation:

Soft tissue does not, itself, constitute evidence of a young earth; but this is treated as though that is an assumed given. The appropriate thing should be that if there is, indeed, actual soft tissue that it should pass through the scientific process and be included in the available data. But if this was presented as the all encompassing trump card that "proves" young earth creationism over and against the scrutiny of real science, then there's a problem--it's a problem that seems to be presented in the linked article and also a problem if that was what the professor was trying to do with his find. Science is not reached by assuming a conclusion and whittling evidence down to get there.

So, again, I'd like as much information as possible; because consider me suspicious whenever I encounter the tired "Creationists suffer from the evolutionist establishment" narrative. Creationism isn't science, and has never done anything to merit being called science.

-CryptoLutheran

So, we found soft tissue in dinosaurs bone. What is your interpretation?
Don't say you do not know because you are not a scientist. You do support evolution even you are not a scientist.

 

[juvenissun]

Given that we see PRATTs about Nebraska "man", Heackel, etc. on a daily basis, I'm not surprised to see the Armitage the martyr PRATT still circulating. The guy is a fraud, his claims are a fraud and his martyrdom story is a fraud.

How about his discovery?

 

[Speedwell]

So, we found soft tissue in dinosaurs bone. What is your interpretation?
Don't say you do not know because you are not a scientist. You do support evolution even you are not a scientist.

I assume that is an hypothetical question.

 

[juvenissun]

The creationist dino dig that Mr Armitage was involved in and published on found pliable osteocyte-like microstructures in a Triceratops horn. These were 20 nanometers long...Many palentolgists have found similar structures in other bones, and their conclusions are radically different from Mr Armitage's - with good reasons.

What are the reasons?

 

[Gene2memE]

What are the reasons?

This is not a thread about this. If you want to discuss the evidence for either the age of the dinosaurs, or the age of the earth, start another thread.

 

[AirPo]

Just doing their job my hairy gluteus, he was a creationist plant,

But if that was his job, he was just doing his job, lieing.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- You do support evolution even you are not a scientist.

"Support evolution"? That is a nonsense statement akin to "support gravity".

 

[juvenissun]

"Support evolution"? That is a nonsense statement akin to "support gravity".

OK, you are picking on my description but not able to challenge the content. Let me rephrase:

You insist that evolution is true, even you are not a biological scientist.

What makes you qualified to do that? How are you different from a creationist who is not a scientist?

 

[Speedwell]

OK, you are picking on my description but not able to challenge the content. Let me rephrase:

You insist that evolution is true, even you are not a biological scientist.

What makes you qualified to do that? How are you different from a creationist who is not a scientist?

The theory of evolution is not closed book to anyone but a scientist. The basics of the theory are accessible to a layman who is interested enough to study it, who is equipped with basic biology and genetics courses or the equivalent. So the non-scientist can reasonably determine that 1. The evolutionary mechanism proposed by the theory is plausible, 2. Is supported by empirical evidence and 3. There is currently no viable alternative theory. That's as close to "truth" as science ever gets, anyway.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK, you are picking on my description but not able to challenge the content. Let me rephrase:

You insist that evolution is true, even you are not a biological scientist.

What makes you qualified to do that? How are you different from a creationist who is not a scientist?

One is not like the other.

One is a religious belief, the other is a description of physical reality. That people are ignorant/undereducated/indoctrinated about science doesnt make it untrue.

YEC is in no way or form equal to science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You insist that evolution is true, even you are not a biological scientist.

What makes you qualified to do that?

Understanding the process and model that scientists came up with, along with an acknowledgement and understanding of the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it.

How are you different from a creationist who is not a scientist?

Well, for starters, we don't deny/ignore the science.
Secondly, we go by actual verifiable and testable work being done by scientists, instead of a book written in the bronze age, by unknown authors in a language that barely even exists today.

No scientist requires you to "just believe" them. In fact, nothing stops you from enrolling in a college or university and taking up a job as a scientist in whatever field you are interested in.

Not so with creationism. That's, in reality, no more or less then fundamentalist religion.

 

[juvenissun]

YEC is in no way or form equal to science.

YEC talks about science. And you are not a scientist. You do not know if evolution is a scientific fact or not. You only "believe" it is.

 

[juvenissun]

Not so with creationism. That's, in reality, no more or less then fundamentalist religion.

At least a creationist talked about science.

YOU (assume not a scientist), do not talk about science. You just believe in science.

Who is more religious?

 

[VirOptimus]

YEC talks about science. And you are not a scientist. You do not know if evolution is a scientific fact or not. You only "believe" it is.

You have no idea who I am, if I am a scientist or not.

Evolution is a scientific theory that is confirmed by the facts.

You dont "belive" in science, you accept it, study it. Belief is for metaphysics.