Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,641 Year: 4,898/9,624 Month: 246/427 Week: 56/103 Day: 14/11 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   University fires scientist, July 2014
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 5 of 25 (737802)
09-30-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tali_Zorah
09-30-2014 9:40 AM

Here are the 'court documents', which is commonly called 'the complaint'. His story is that after telling students that the fossil's soft tissue had implications regarding its age, his supervisor yelled at him about religion and his 'creationist projects'. 8 months later (two weeks after publication) his employment was terminated. He believes he can make a case that this correlation is sufficient to prove causation in a civil case.
We haven't heard the opposing position at this time as far as I know. I'm going to guess two possible avenues: Funding cuts {boring}, and there were complaints that Armitage had crossed the line from expressing an opinion to proselytizing.
Either way, I think headlines such as University Fires Christian Scientist for Discovery Proving Creationism are grotesquely misleading as it presents it as a done deal, rather than just an allegation. And also: the discovery doesn't prove creationism or even a young earth. At best it proves recent dinosaurs, and it doesn't even do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tali_Zorah, posted 09-30-2014 9:40 AM Tali_Zorah has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 10-05-2014 6:57 AM Modulous has replied

Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 11 of 25 (737875)
10-01-2014 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Pressie
10-01-2014 12:49 AM

Re: He's not a scientist
He was not appointed as a scientist by CSUN
This does not prohibit him from being a scientist.
Liberty and ICR? And they call him a scientist?
Those credentials serve their own purpose. Credentials don't make someone a scientist.
Armitage, M. 1996. Heterophyid trematodes in the Light of Scanning Electron Microscopy. Microscopy and Analysis. July: 54: 43-44. 1 Gable Cottage Post House Lane, Surrey KT23 3EA ENGLAND
Armitage, M. 1997. The Euryhaline cottid fish, Leptocottus armatus (Girard), second intermediate host of the trematode Ascocotyle (P.) diminuta. Bulletin of the Southern Calif. Academy of Sciences 96(3) :112-116
Armitage, M. 1999. The euryhaline gobiid fish, Gillichthys mirabilis Cooper 1874, second intermediate host of the trematode, Pygidiopsoides spindalis Martin, 1951. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 98(2):75-79 . Cover photo, in addition to article.
Armitage, M. 2001. Cercarial emergence from rediae in California snail tissues. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 100(1) 50-58. Cover photo in addition to article.
Armitage, M. 2004. The spray nozzle of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus favicollis, Erwin. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 103(1): 24-33.
Armitage, M. 2004. Artifacts from rapid microwave processing of trematode tissues (Ascocotyle pachycystis and leighi). Microscopy Today 12(5):32-35
Doing science? That qualifies, I think, even if it isn't all that exciting.
He was not employed to do research. He was employed as a technician. He thus was abusing University facilities. Instant dismissal in the country I live in.
Interesting angle. Although I think him engaging in a 'Socratic dialogue' about the age of the horn while training someone else's students how to use a microscope may have been contributory to his dismissal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Pressie, posted 10-01-2014 12:49 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 10-04-2014 8:58 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 22 of 25 (738152)
10-05-2014 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
10-05-2014 6:57 AM

Of course, the burden-of-proof isn't upon anyone to prove a "recent dinosaur"
Unless they claim it.
Any materialist conclusion is acceptable, no matter how silly, (example: abiogenesis)
Proposing explanations that are consistent with how the universe works is acceptable, yes.
Theistic offerings are rejected, no matter how sound.(Overt information code in organisms)
That's not a theistic offering. A theistic offering would be 'a divine being is responsible for the information in organisms', but, to date, without providing evidence that this is the case. Hardly acceptable in the same way as the alternative above.
After all, if history had went the other way, then Darwin would have been thrown out if he was alive today.
Given his personality, I'd assume he'd be field scientist studying barnacles or worms and we'd never hear about him. Either that or he'd crop up as having discovered some new African or American species every now and then.
It would be confirmation evidence represented by the consequent in a conditional implication, because we would expect to find preserved, "less old" tissue if the earth and life is younger, as opposed to millions of years older, because it doesn't makes sense to suspend scientific-laws on behalf of a theory.
Well as a general rule we don't find soft tissue, and the only reasoning proposed that it is young is 'I don't know how it could have survived for as long as you say'. There is no law that means this material must be young.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 10-05-2014 6:57 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024