Lawsuit because science is silenced

[rwatts]

The potential problem here is the belief in 'compartmentalization' - a lengthy topic - 'nuff said. [/COLOR]

Jorge

We would all like to discuss compartmentalization with you Jorge. We'd all like to bring our black couches along, for you to lie on while we discuss it.

[Sam]

So Schweitzer (who describes herself as "a complete and total Christian”) gets grants to continue studying soft tissues and Armitage gets fired despite both discoveries having essentially the same supposed "religious implications."

And you wonder why I said that this doesn't pass the smell test? It seems that something very important is being left out by Armitage in his account.

Armitage was the director of the lab that Bob Enyart was gassin' on about meeting during his brief stay here pre-crash. I seem to remember him saying that Armitage had found something about soft dinosaur tissue at the time but that might be filling in gaps in memory with the current chatter.

Personally, a working relationship with Bob Enyart would be a big enough red flag for me to distrust the source. Any road, hadn't seen that bit of history mentioned so thought I'd bring it back to attention.

[HMS_Beagle]

Armitage was the director of the lab that Bob Enyart was gassin' on about meeting during his brief stay here pre-crash. I seem to remember him saying that Armitage had found something about soft dinosaur tissue at the time but that might be filling in gaps in memory with the current chatter.

Personally, a working relationship with Bob Enyart would be a big enough red flag for me to distrust the source. Any road, hadn't seen that bit of history mentioned so thought I'd bring it back to attention.

Armitage has a long and sordid history with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), including flaunting a fake MS degree from the non-accredited "ICR Graduate School". Here is a 2003 article at ICR by John Morris bragging about Armitage and all the "creation science" he can now do with his microscopy skills.

Research At ICR

This whole thing looks to be another false claim orchestrated by ICR as a cheap publicity stunt.

[HMS_Beagle]

Over at the Panda's Thumb board PhD Biologist Dr. Gary Hurd has weighted in with more information on the Armitage affair.

Armitage was a "permanent part time technician." That means he was never legally a full-time employee regardless of his hours, or years worked. It means that he would never be promoted. It means that he could be terminated from employment at any time for any reason- or none. The addition of "permanent" to the job title meant that he got benefits which is very generous.

This is a bottom rung job.

A part time technician does not get to do independent research using University facilities.

A "permanent part time technician" was taking liberties that a faculty member would not have taken.

I don't who of you have jumped through these hoops before. Suppose you have an idea without any funding. You face two options: A) beg from a funded colleague, or B) write a short proposal to circulate around the university.

Under option "A" you are inviting the funded colleague to basically take your idea on as a project. You will be their co-investigator, you will be their co-author, you will be their tool. Option "B" is a search for seed money to try enough of the idea to write a killer grant proposal, give a conference paper, and be able to promise that your quarterly progress reports will be on time because they are practically written. The acknowledgment section under option B will mention "faculty development grant," "XYZ university foundation," or "grant in aid from ABC lab/facility under NSF (DOE, NIH) Grant #######. You can see these in every issue of Science Magazine.

Reading the article, and ironically his lawyer prepared complaint, showed a huge glaring reason to fire him. It was the amount of equipment, staff time, and lab stockroom supplies that were used on the one hand, and the total lack of funding or authorization on the other. And, as this "research" is already published, there is no possible way that those costs can be recovered. Armitage potentially stole $thousands$ from the University, unless he paid out of pocket. (I'll take bets he didn't).

That will get you fired pronto.

Armitage just helped himself, and if he did it during hours he was paid, then he stole salary as well.

It is also obvious that few people actually read the "research" paper supposedly at the center of this little storm.

Mark Hollis Armitage, Kevin Lee Anderson
2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608

I have. It is crap.

The age of dinosaur bone is based on the formation it is recovered from and not the condition of the bone. There was no competent stratigraphic analysis of these fossils to associate any radiometric data and the recovered material. (Armitage also denies elsewhere the validity of all radiometric dates). The fact is that the fossil was found in a shallow secondary deposit. It was cracked and open to the environment. It was observed to have rootlets growing through it! None of the reasonable tests for the age of the material were performed (especially amino acid racemization analysis if as I suspect the "soft tissue" is recent plant and microorganisms). Armitage and Anderson soaked chunks from the horn core in Glutaraldehyde which is a cross-linking and tanning agent. In short, they made plastic out of any bacteria, fungi, or any other organic sludge on the bone. The attempted to demineralize other samples with sodium EDTA was incomplete. There are other problems as well.

The journal will be humiliated as soon as I find time to review it for publication.

As I mentioned before, it's looking more and more like Armitage was using the CSUN facilities without proper authorization or permission. On top of that, the "research" looks to be pure crap too.

[rogue06]

If Hurd's assessment here holds up it looks to be pretty damning.

[phank]

But does anyone seriously doubt that Armitage and Anderson would have done all this without a straight religious motivation? Hard to tell whether they wanted bogus findings in support of a religious agenda, or whether they wanted rejection of those findings (or being fired) in support of that same religious agenda. But it's hard to imagine they were trying to do genuine science.

[klaus54]

But does anyone seriously doubt that Armitage and Anderson would have done all this without a straight religious motivation? Hard to tell whether they wanted bogus findings in support of a religious agenda, or whether they wanted rejection of those findings (or being fired) in support of that same religious agenda. But it's hard to imagine they were trying to do genuine science.

I lean towards the latter. Now, it's possible that Armitage did not know that dino "soft tissue" had already been discovered (by a Christian no less) with results and hypotheses published.

K54

[rogue06]

I lean towards the latter. Now, it's possible that Armitage did not know that dino "soft tissue" had already been discovered (by a Christian no less) with results and hypotheses published.

K54

I find the idea that he was unaware that soft tissue had already been discovered extremely doubtful.

[phank]

I find the idea that he was unaware that soft tissue had already been discovered extremely doubtful.

Given Jorge's instinctive and intuitive reaction, I agree with klaus54 that the purpose was to forward their new careers as martyrs vilified by intolerant science in the name of their god. As with Coppedge and Gonzales. No creationist can ever be fired (or denied tenure) for any reason other than religious intolerance, since clearly there ARE no merits involved.

[klaus54]

Given Jorge's instinctive and intuitive reaction, I agree with klaus54 that the purpose was to forward their new careers as martyrs vilified by intolerant science in the name of their god. As with Coppedge and Gonzales. No creationist can ever be fired (or denied tenure) for any reason other than religious intolerance, since clearly there ARE no merits involved.

Jorge needs to return to this thread and defend his OP.

He and other anti-evolutionists have employed the martyr strategy before, e.g., the whole "Expelled" fiasco.

Pretty reptilian...

K54

[Jorge]

But does anyone seriously doubt that Armitage and Anderson would have done all this without a straight religious motivation? Hard to tell whether they wanted bogus findings in support of a religious agenda, or whether they wanted rejection of those findings (or being fired) in support of that same religious agenda. But it's hard to imagine they were trying to do genuine science.

So now on top of everything else Phankestein has become a mind reader.

In addition, let me remind you of something that I have stated from my first day here on TWeb: everyone (EVERYONE!!!) has a religious agenda in their life. It may be overt or it may be covert; it may be obvious or it may be subtle; it may be diplomatic or it may be militant; it may be expressed with calm rationality or it may be expressed with blind emotional irrationality. Whatever the case may be, it is there.

The ignorance or dishonesty (it's one or the other) in most people is that they fail to see/accept that fact but instead place themselves on a "holier-than-thou" pedestal that they claim is "religious-free ... based on pure "science" and reason". Then they use their self-appointed "scientifically-superior status" to brow-beat everyone that doesn't agree with their religion.

Oops ... so sorry ... was I just talking about some of you people?

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge needs to return to this thread and defend his OP.

He and other anti-evolutionists have employed the martyr strategy before, e.g., the whole "Expelled" fiasco.

Pretty reptilian...

K54

See my last post - generously apply to yourself.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I find the idea that he was unaware that soft tissue had already been discovered extremely doubtful.

OF COURSE he was aware, you resurrected Dodo Birds! That anyone should even suggest the contrary is, once again, either ignorance or dishonesty - one or the other.

Anyone would only have to read his paper to have know that. But as we all know, anti-Biblical Creationists thrash out at Creationists in knee-jerk reaction without knowing what they're blathering about. Enter many of the people here on TWeb NatSci 301 --- stage left.

Jorge

[klaus54]

See my last post - generously apply to yourself.

Jorge

Jorge,

Focus here, son!

So you won't admit that the OP indicated a purely religious agenda instead of scientific one as you claimed in the title.

Duly noted.

Are you willing to admit that the "martyr complex" is a propaganda strategy of anti-evolutionists?

K54

[klaus54]

OF COURSE he was aware, you resurrected Dodo Birds! That anyone should even suggest the contrary is, once again, either ignorance or dishonesty - one or the other.

Anyone would only have to read his paper to have know that. But as we all know, anti-Biblical Creationists thrash out at Creationists in knee-jerk reaction without knowing what they're blathering about. Enter many of the people here on TWeb NatSci 301 --- stage left.

Jorge

So why the fuss?

The dudes would not have been fired if science was their only agenda.

Are you denying they had a religious agenda? Did they make an hypothesis about a religious application of the data?

It's apparently you didn't read this thread carefully, especially the part where it's was pointed out that the one dude was not a scientist in the same sense of those where has was employed. Of course you could be intentionally obfuscating.

K54