Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Lawsuit because science is silenced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lawsuit because science is silenced

    .
    News like this certainly doesn't surprise me - no, not in the least. The 'howling deniers', however, are sure to be backpedaling and concocting excuses over this one. Here's the latest in the world of "open-minded, objective science" and the consequences of trying to practice it:

    "A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings... While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue... [this] discovery stunned members of the scientific community..."

    Armitage reported his findings and ...

    ... "shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

    So, reporting a scientific finding is "religion"???

    Oh yeah, I get it! This finding is further evidence against the established religious dogma and so if you dare oppose that religious dogma then, like any other heretic, you must be banished! The proper thing for Armitage to do was to bury this finding, not publish it.

    Good thing the old 'stake' isn't around or Armitage would've been roasting right about now.

    Yup - modern 'science' at its best!

    http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-...saur-discovery

    Jorge

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    .
    News like this certainly doesn't surprise me - no, not in the least. The 'howling deniers', however, are sure to be backpedaling and concocting excuses over this one. Here's the latest in the world of "open-minded, objective science" and the consequences of trying to practice it:

    "A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings... While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue... [this] discovery stunned members of the scientific community..."

    Armitage reported his findings and ...

    ... "shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

    So, reporting a scientific finding is "religion"???

    Oh yeah, I get it! This finding is further evidence against the established religious dogma and so if you dare oppose that religious dogma then, like any other heretic, you must be banished! The proper thing for Armitage to do was to bury this finding, not publish it.

    Good thing the old 'stake' isn't around or Armitage would've been roasting right about now.

    Yup - modern 'science' at its best!

    http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-...saur-discovery

    Jorge
    Crickets are a'chirpin' ...
    Owls are a'hootin' ...
    Wolves are a'howlin' ...

    Other than that, dead silence. Why am I not surprised.

    I've lost count of the number of times since I've been at TWeb that I have posted about similar events as this. Yet the Evolutionists (of all persuasions) would have us believe that they are "fair/open-minded, honest, seeking the Truth" in these matters. The observable evidence points in the opposite direction. Oh well ... que sera, sera.

    Jorge

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      .
      News like this certainly doesn't surprise me - no, not in the least. The 'howling deniers', however, are sure to be backpedaling and concocting excuses over this one. Here's the latest in the world of "open-minded, objective science" and the consequences of trying to practice it:

      "A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings... While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue... [this] discovery stunned members of the scientific community..."

      Armitage reported his findings and ...

      ... "shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

      So, reporting a scientific finding is "religion"???

      Oh yeah, I get it! This finding is further evidence against the established religious dogma and so if you dare oppose that religious dogma then, like any other heretic, you must be banished! The proper thing for Armitage to do was to bury this finding, not publish it.

      Good thing the old 'stake' isn't around or Armitage would've been roasting right about now.

      Yup - modern 'science' at its best!

      http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-...saur-discovery

      Jorge
      This is way old news Jorge. Armitage didn't get fired for publishing YEC results. He got fired (actually had his contract as Electron Microscopy lab manager not renewed) for his unauthorized use of the school's very expensive microscopy equipment to do his YEC "research".

      This looks to be another "nuisance" lawsuit just like the one filed by YEC pusher David Coppedge against NASA.

      YECs never let things like the truth stand in the way of a good whine.
      Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 07-24-2014, 05:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        From Jorge's source:
        Pacific Justice Institute filed suit, yesterday, with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, against the board of trustees of CSU, Northridge, citing discrimination for perceived religious views. ... According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"
        If the suit was filed yesterday, the only court documents likely to exist are those include in the filing, plus minor administrative papers. Which suggests that the only source for that quote is Mark Armitage himself.

        IIRC from when the firing happened, there was never anything other than Armitage's say-so that religion or the published paper had anything to do with it. This has all the signs of another instance of YEC/ID lawyers claiming religous intolerance when there were clear other reasons for dismissal - just as in the Coppedge case. Which reminds me - Jorge also neglects to mention that Armitage is a full-blooded young earth creationist.

        Roy
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

        Comment


        • #5
          Given that soft tissue has been found in other dinosaur fossils over the years, and the existence of that tissue noted in respectable scientific journals - the story that finding this particular soft tissue led to dismissal doesn't seem to be overly credible.
          http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ker-115306469/
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            From Jorge's source:If the suit was filed yesterday, the only court documents likely to exist are those include in the filing, plus minor administrative papers. Which suggests that the only source for that quote is Mark Armitage himself.

            IIRC from when the firing happened, there was never anything other than Armitage's say-so that religion or the published paper had anything to do with it. This has all the signs of another instance of YEC/ID lawyers claiming religous intolerance when there were clear other reasons for dismissal - just as in the Coppedge case. Which reminds me - Jorge also neglects to mention that Armitage is a full-blooded young earth creationist.
            Yep. Just like DI Fellow Guillermo Gonzalez screamed "religious discrimination!!" when he was denied tenure at Iowa State.

            Armitage will get his 15 minutes of fame on Faux News, ICR and AIG will net a few more bucks in donations for the "poor persecuted YEC", then he'll be sent on his frivolous lawsuit way.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              From Jorge's source:If the suit was filed yesterday, the only court documents likely to exist are those include in the filing, plus minor administrative papers. Which suggests that the only source for that quote is Mark Armitage himself.

              IIRC from when the firing happened, there was never anything other than Armitage's say-so that religion or the published paper had anything to do with it. This has all the signs of another instance of YEC/ID lawyers claiming religous intolerance when there were clear other reasons for dismissal - just as in the Coppedge case. Which reminds me - Jorge also neglects to mention that Armitage is a full-blooded young earth creationist.

              Roy
              An observation and question... Is prevarication a common practice for YEC apologists?

              K54

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                An observation and question... Is prevarication a common practice for YEC apologists?

                K54
                If you think about it, you realize it is the sine qua non of YEC apologists.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It will be interesting to see how this guy does in court compared to Professor Stephen Barnett and Professor Steven DeGeorge, who are suing Bryan college for being fired. They were fired for not being creationists.

                  http://www.christianpost.com/news/pr...nd-eve-119796/
                  My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    Given that soft tissue has been found in other dinosaur fossils over the years, and the existence of that tissue noted in respectable scientific journals - the story that finding this particular soft tissue led to dismissal doesn't seem to be overly credible.
                    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ker-115306469/
                    It wasn't the finding that led to the dismissal. It was the reporting of the finding. More specifically, it was associating the implications of the reporting with Armitage's religious beliefs (Biblical Creationist). In other words, soft tissue supports a 'young' creation, not an 'old' one. The Establishment's religious position (Materialistic) cannot and will not allow such evidence to hit the public venue.

                    And that's the basis of the lawsuit. Armitage reports scientific findings of factual, verifiable evidence and as such has NOTHING to do with his religious beliefs. It would be as if an astronomer discovered a new moon around Jupiter, reported it, and was then dismissed from his position because this discovery supported his religious beliefs.

                    If you cannot see the blatantly obvious persecution here then I don't know what else to say.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                      It will be interesting to see how this guy does in court compared to Professor Stephen Barnett and Professor Steven DeGeorge, who are suing Bryan college for being fired. They were fired for not being creationists.

                      http://www.christianpost.com/news/pr...nd-eve-119796/
                      You do realize, I certainly hope, that this is an entirely different rationale. Also, they were NOT "fired for not being Creationists". Try harder at reporting accurately. See below...

                      Armitage was reporting factual, observable, verifiable facts - i.e., science. But this science had implications that weren't to the liking of the (Materialistic) Establishment - they cannot and will not "allow the Holy Foot in the door". Armitage reported findings that challenged the Establishment's religious dogma thus making him a heretic to be punished.

                      In the case of Barnett and DeGeorge, they are working for an institution that requires (i.e., it's a formal, declared requisite) that the employees share/abide by/promote the Articles of Faith of that institution. The employees are free to accept or reject. If they accept, they may be employees; if they reject, they may not be employees - period, end of story.

                      Do you think that the NCSE would accept as an employee anyone subscribing to and promoting a 'young' Earth? Of course not. And if an employee at the NCSE converted to Biblical Creationism, that person would very likely be dismissed in short order.

                      Besides that, why would a Biblical Creationist wish to work at the NCSE - a place that is totally against his faith/beliefs? Likewise, why would DeGeorge and Barnett wish to remain at Bryan College if the place promotes beliefs that they do not share?

                      Like I said, those are two totally separate legal issues and should not be conflated.

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                        If you cannot see the blatantly obvious persecution here then I don't know what else to say.

                        Jorge
                        All we see is a YEC screaming persecution with zero evidence presented so far. Since YECs tend to be compulsive liars we'll have to see if Armitage can back up his claims. Coppedge screamed the same false thing and lost. Gonzalez screamed the same false thing and lost. There seems to be a pattern.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          In the case of Barnett and DeGeorge, they are working for an institution that requires (i.e., it's a formal, declared requisite) that the employees share/abide by/promote the Articles of Faith of that institution. The employees are free to accept or reject. If they accept, they may be employees; if they reject, they may not be employees - period, end of story.
                          It's actually a bit more complicated than that. Bryant had a statement of faith that these professors agreed with completely. In Bryant's charter, it was specified that that statement of faith could not be changed. But the current administration decided they could add a "clarification" to the statement, which changed things enough that the professors felt they could no longer agree to it.

                          Is a clarification a change? No idea personally, but it is apparently something that the court will decide. I'm actually hoping this is a case that doesn't get settled before hand, because it appears to touch on interesting and complicated issues.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            You do realize, I certainly hope, that this is an entirely different rationale. Also, they were NOT "fired for not being Creationists". Try harder at reporting accurately. See below...
                            They were fired for not signing a document that required them to be creationists.

                            They were happy to sign the original statement of faith, but were fired for not signing the revised version, which was more explicitly creationist. This, as far as I can see, they were fired for not being creationists.

                            By the way, the revision of the statement of faith contravened the original charter of the college, as pointed out above.
                            Armitage was reporting factual, observable, verifiable facts - i.e., science. But this science had implications that weren't to the liking of the (Materialistic) Establishment - they cannot and will not "allow the Holy Foot in the door". Armitage reported findings that challenged the Establishment's religious dogma thus making him a heretic to be punished.
                            This is clearly nonsense as the discovery of soft tissue has been published in the peer-reviwed literature.
                            In the case of Barnett and DeGeorge, they are working for an institution that requires (i.e., it's a formal, declared requisite) that the employees share/abide by/promote the Articles of Faith of that institution. The employees are free to accept or reject. If they accept, they may be employees; if they reject, they may not be employees - period, end of story.
                            What the institute did in this instance was to modify that Articles of Faith to make it creationist, and then fire those who would not sign up as creationists.

                            That is an underhand way of firing them for being evolutionists.
                            Do you think that the NCSE would accept as an employee anyone subscribing to and promoting a 'young' Earth? Of course not. And if an employee at the NCSE converted to Biblical Creationism, that person would very likely be dismissed in short order.
                            We will have to wait to see if that happens.

                            Right now, we have two professors who were fired for being evolutionists.
                            Besides that, why would a Biblical Creationist wish to work at the NCSE - a place that is totally against his faith/beliefs?
                            You tell me. You are the one who suggested it. It sounded pretty stupid when I read it.
                            Likewise, why would DeGeorge and Barnett wish to remain at Bryan College if the place promotes beliefs that they do not share?
                            Maybe they strongly believe in the ideals the college was set up to promote. The ideals that creationists have sullied by pushing their own agenda on the college.

                            Maybe they like have jobs.
                            Like I said, those are two totally separate legal issues and should not be conflated.
                            I think we can agree there. One is flagrant discrimination on the basis of religious viewpoint and the other is just some creationist whining.
                            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              .
                              News like this certainly doesn't surprise me - no, not in the least. The 'howling deniers', however, are sure to be backpedaling and concocting excuses over this one. Here's the latest in the world of "open-minded, objective science" and the consequences of trying to practice it:

                              "A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings... While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue... [this] discovery stunned members of the scientific community..."


                              http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-...saur-discovery

                              Jorge
                              An acquaintance of mine wrote this (with which I agree): I fear he is in for the "Coppedge" treatment. The defendant's upper management circles the wagons, gets the story straight that the firing had nothing to do with hostility toward his religion but was for some relatively innocuous reason (he was a jerk, uncooperative, had bad breath, didn't know how to dress), and then trusts the fact finder to see it their way.

                              It's all 'good' in any event because it provides additional evidence of the anti-science tactics of those that supposedly are "seeking knowledge and truth". In the future this evidence will be quite valuable at their 'trial'.

                              Jorge

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              2 responses
                              28 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X