3
   

Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:05 pm
Guaranteed to piss off Farmer: Armitage and his bottom-feeder telling his side of the tale:

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:24 pm
@layman,
ya notice how he conflates his "publication in "M...Acta as "SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS NOT OLD"


I rest my case .From his own mouth to your ears.

I stated that he published his "young earth theory" after he did the C14, according to him, he did it before even running the C14 samples.

WHERE IN THE M Acta paper was he saying that the earth is young??? and that evolution "may be wrong"???


ANYWAY, what do you expectArmitage would say in youtube, dmit that hes fraud"

Im not pissed, I thank you for posting it. Hes gonna hve to eat the ords "My paper suggests that evolution is wrong"

I think hi dismissal letter was hosted on sommebody's blog.


HMMMMM
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:40 pm
@layman,
And that is precisely the false dichotamy I told you doesn't make his claim true. And there you go just bringing it up again.

Other possibilities. The soft tissue was from another source before the fossils were formed. The soft tissue was from another source after the fossils were formed. What is NOT a possibility is that the fossils were only 4,000 years old because every other scientific test says they are not.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:42 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
ya notice how he conflates his "publication in "M...Acta as "SUGGESTING THAT THE EARTH IS NOT OLD"


Actually, he said "maybe," but, yeah, I noticed that.


Quote:
I rest my case .From his own mouth to your ears.


Hmm. That's it? That's your case? How does this "case" show that he should be fired as a lab tech, exactly?

Quote:
WHERE IN THE M Acta paper was he saying that the earth is young??? and that evolution "may be wrong"???


Posters here seem to go back and forth on this. Are you now saying he was obligated to include his personal conclusions in his published paper? Why?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:46 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The soft tissue was from another source after the fossils were formed.


Nice that you, a poster on A2k, has definitely resolved the issue that the experts can't agree on, eh, Parados? Just tell them! They'll probably appoint you to be the chairman of the microbiology department at Harvard, eh!?

Edit: OK, I see you were just suggesting a possibility, not purporting to give a definitive answer. My bad. But how can you even make such a suggestion? Is that science? How do you KNOW your suggestion is right?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:51 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I told you doesn't make his claim true. And there you go just bringing it up again.


No. Scroll up. I told you that.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:52 pm
@farmerman,
California Labor LAw is fairly clear on terminations
Quote:
California’s Labor Code specifies that an employment relationship with no specified duration is presumed to be employment “at-will.” This means, at least in theory, that the employer or employee may terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. There are exceptions to the at-will rule created by statute, the courts or public policy.

Statutory exceptions include terminating an employee for reasons based on the discrimination laws discussed above; for participating in union activity; for refusing to carry out an activity that violates the law.

An employer can potentially reduce exposure to wrongful discharge liability by emphasizing using an at-will language in all written and verbal communications with employees. This extends from job announcements and interviews to employee handbooks, training seminars and employee reviews. It is also advised to avoid references in all situations that indicate job security or permanence.


Cal LAwfirms do it all the time so its a bit ironic that Armitage's mouthpiece is showing concern and disbelief at the guys termination.


CAN YOU SEE that many times , under the US Constitution, someones religious freedom rights under the "Free Exercise Clause" of the the 1st Amendment, may come into conflict with the following , or "Establishment Clause" , especially for public institutions of education . I wonder whether Armitage was dismissed with the first Amendment in mind. If you were speaking about all this, you should have done a better job of trying to stand behind it. I suppose you could make an argument that he is NOT dismissable under the fennces imposed in the 1st Amendment, in that they may not apply, EVEN though the university is a public institution governed by the state.
The colleges dont FORBID anyone from being a Creationist. They only tend to get all riled up when you "preach your religion as science" Armitage was a adjunct faculty with no responsibilities to teach a "survey course" on biological myths. AND BESIDES, when he perped the fraud with the C14 scam, he dug his own grave. and I dont think anyone's going to really feel that his civil rights were trashed because he fired the first shots.

POOR BABY, he will now have to satisfy himself by just being a lowly "science adviisor" within the CRI as well as a board member.


Just like John SCopes waas a "plant" to teach evolution in violation of Tennessee's Butler Act, and would knowingly draw a court case, maybe CRI is using this firing to draw a court case like the recent one in DOver Pa where the Creation/ID crowd lost the court case and decided NOT to appeal.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 08:57 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Actually, he said "maybe,
My pprevious statement re the US Constitution doesnt distinguish between whether I suggest the moon is"maybe" made of green cheese or state emphatically that itIS made of green cheese.

When it gets to court, "Maybe" will probably help in upholding hi dismissal
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 09:02 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Statutory exceptions include terminating an employee for reasons based on the discrimination laws discussed above


I see you didn't bother to quote the part revealing the "exceptions" based on "the discrimination laws discussed above," eh?

Quote:
CAN YOU SEE that many times , under the US Constitution, someones religious freedom rights under the "Free Exercise Clause" of the the 1st Amendment, may come into conflict with the following , or "Establishment Clause" , especially for public institutions of education


No, not really, especially at the college level (this aint high school) based on views of a guy working in the lab. As you say:

Quote:
Armitage was a adjunct faculty with no responsibilities to teach a "survey course"...


Keep at it though, Farmer. Maybe you should inform his stupid-ass bottom-feeder about what the law REALLY is, eh?

Quote:
I dont think anyone's going to really feel that his civil rights were trashed


Well, I don't know about "anyone," but obviously you are fine with his civil rights being "trashed." Hell, he's a DAMN CREATIONIST!! All ya need to know, eh?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 09:21 pm
I wonder if these guys will want to show up at his trial, eh?

Quote:
American Association of University Professors: Protecting Academic Freedom

Protecting academic freedom is the AAUP's core mission. Academic freedom is the indispensable requisite for unfettered teaching and research in institutions of higher education. As the academic community's core policy document states, "institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition" (1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which has been endorsed by more than 240 national scholarly and educational associations).


http://www.aaup.org/our-work/protecting-academic-freedom

Quote:
Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject... When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline...


http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2015 09:33 pm
@layman,
Quote:
No, not really, especially at the college level (this aint high school) based on views of a guy working in the lab.


I didn't word that quite right. Yeah, I can see a potential conflict. But I can't see that it applies at a university level, especially when you're talking about a lab tech. That's more what I intended to say.

Suppose the college janitor was a "creationist." Suppose he got to chatting up some students about his beliefs, even. Should he be fired?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 03:20 am
@layman,
California has had several cases that have defined a faculty memeber's rights as well as a SChools rights under the net NEutrality principalwrt religious activities by faculty. So the requirements under a public institution of higher ed apparently are still covered under the 1st amendment and the Jeffersonian "wall of separation" is a[ppparently mentioned in several statutes.

IM sure the AAUP will be there because , in Pa, they came to Michael Behe's defense and Lehigh University treads water very lightly wrt his career reviews and his overall rights as a faculty in a PRIVATE institution (as Lehigh is).

I think ARmitage's condition i just such a possible challenge to "at will' firing" and, if he wins, it adds a hole new dimension to faculty freedoms wrt his primary responsibilities (And apparent skill set)

Thats why I dont think he will win because hes flaunting the Constitution and the Net Neutrality requirements f Calif Law.

His lawyeres job is to "pump up" his case for a possible jury trial. Thats his job, hes not required to practice under any requirements of the State or US Constitution. I just think that the youtube clip isnt going to help ARmitage because he seems to be admitting that he was NOT practicing religious neutrality and was somewhat dismissive of the establishment clause.

Since Armitage is a card carrying member of a "Scientific Creationism" sect and has used his bogus lab practice to pose his beliefs n a sort of classroom environment (sort of a peripatetic style).
Will he get away with it?

If it comes to court-he probably does hve a chance . If it somehow settles outside of court, he will become a statistic for the scool and a martyr for his CRI role.

Im tired of the feigned "sincerity" these CRI and Discovery Institute shock troops show to an increasingly ignorant public. ARmitage used his religious beliefs to present a non-scientifically based view of earth history to students . He did it in a fraudulent manner(and he lied about it in his video) and I hope his ass remains out of a public institution of higher learning.
Accreditation in the sciences would be meaningless if we now start teaching special aspects of the Linnaean system of classification to include space for Bigfoot or Unicorns. If the U is embarrased at how theyve treated him, they can always give him an adjunct position in the Anthropology department or Divinities programs (if there are such programs).


SCience is real science. Its goverened by very simple rules of development in a classroom environment.
ARmitage was caught sneaking the Creation "Science" viewpoint into the minds of students and he did it using bogus methods including bullshit chemistry , the results of which he tacked on to a methods paper that he had published in a juried journal.

You seem to think he did this honestly?

Youve still remained silent on the entire concept of the dates that were secured by K/Ar and K/Ar/Ca and U/Pb dating of the sediments that enclosed the Triceratops . Instead he chose to have C14 done and felt attacked when he was dismissed under what may become a big Constitutional case (he hopes)





farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 03:43 am
@layman,
Quote:

Suppose the college janitor was a "creationist." Suppose he got to chatting up some students about his beliefs, even. Should he be fired
You like to have it many ways eh? A janitor is not faculty and is not governed by rules that govern "faculty'. You want to have him covered s a faculty member but on the other hand you say "hes only a lab tech".
Maybe you and his lawyer should edit his youtube or anything else hes said. He aint helping himself.

Hes adjunct faculty. I think that defines it. EVerything that arises is governed by what defines his professional position.


While its true that this is NOT a public HS, it IS a public institution and Im sure the Establishment clause and neutrality requiremens as well as what the AAUP defines his professional conduct.
I think itll all boil down to whether what he was talking up about a "young earth" (that was based upon his fraud) , was it done in a classroom environment?

If its clearly not a classroom, I guess Armitage can properly invoke his academic freedom that is allowed him in the public or the marketplace.

As an example, Mike Behe gets away with it because he carefully does not inject his personal religious views in his microbiology classes. He has, however, taught his beliefs of "irreducibe complexity" in seminar environments outside and has written a number of scientistic books that promote ID.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 09:49 am
@farmerman,
Farmer, thanks for your last two posts. They are certainly much more dispassionate in tone, and focus on the principles involved, not the personalities. As I've said, that's my main interest in this topic, and that's what I've been trying to address.

You raise some well-considered, even-handed, points in these posts, and I intend to respond to them. I don't have time now, but I'll get back to them when I can.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 10:09 am
@layman,
Quote:
But how can you even make such a suggestion? Is that science? How do you KNOW your suggestion is right?

You didn't bother to read Armitage's paper did you? That is not my suggestion. It came directly from Armitage's paper.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 10:56 am
Don't have time to respond to your post, now, Parados. I will later. All I will say for now is that, once again, you appear to completely misunderstand the import of the question.

This post in not designed to reply to any particular post. It is just a quick observation submitted for consideration.

In the past, the ACLU has filed lawsuits on behalf of the Nazi Party. As a result they were (and have been) accused (by some) of "defending Nazism" and of "being Nazis." Their response has been that they do not endorse the Nazi creed and that they are merely defending their constitutional right to freely assemble (if peaceful), express their views (however repugnant), etc.

Still some people can't seem to make that distinction, and say the ACLU is a "Nazi" organization.

Suppose they filed a similar suit on behalf of a creationist? Same thing, I suppose. Many would conclude that they "believe in" creationism and are creationists.

parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 12:54 pm
@layman,
When the ACLU defends the Nazi Party they are defending a clearly articulated right that is being violated for a group. This is a right that is easy to express and show how it applies to all.

In the case of Armitage, there is no right to employment. There is only right to not being fired for certain reasons. Armitage claiming a particular reason doesn't make it so. The actions of Armitage, both in his published papers and his proselytizing to students would point to his actions not being protected. But of course, that completely ignores the even greater hurdle he has to meet to win such a lawsuit. It would appear the university eliminated his position. That raises the bar even higher for Armitage in a lawsuit. Unless the university reinstated that position and filled it shortly after firing, there isn't much that a court can even look at.

The difference between you and the ACLU is that the ACLU is familiar with the facts before filing in support of a group. You seem to want to ignore the facts and simply make stuff up as you go along. You are NOT even close to the ACLU.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 04:40 pm
@parados,
I quoted your exact words from a post which said this:
Quote:
The soft tissue was from another source after the fossils were formed.


Your response is:

Quote:
That is not my suggestion. It came directly from Armitage's paper


Can you point out where in his paper he says "The soft tissue was from another source after the fossils were formed.?" It's really just a side issue, but now I'm really wondering about your reading comprehension.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 04:45 pm
@parados,
Quote:
..there isn't much that a court can even look at.


When were you appointed to be judge and jury? Where did you get your law degree?

You purport to state "facts" without citing a source, and you further presume at least one of two things (if not both).

YOU have information that his lawyers don't, and/or
YOU know the law much better than his attorneys (who perceived enough merit, based on the facts known to them, to justify filing a lawsuit).

It is both, or just one of those that you claim?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2015 04:55 pm
@parados,
Quote:
..., there isn't much that a court can even look at.


As far as any facts go in this case, I don't pretend to know or vouch for any of them (and that includes Armitage's sworn claim that he was told his religion would not be tolerated). Some outlets, such as Nature magazine and Armitages's lawyers, have stated some supposed "facts" though. Nature said that the university reported that he was fired because his religious beliefs "interefered with his duties" (something like that).

Other sources say the university claims the job was "temporary," but his attorneys say that the job he applied was presented to him as being a "permanent" one (in writing), and claim to have other information, known to them, which is inconsistent with this (and other) claims made by the university.

Other sources say that Armitage had always received quite favorable reviews of his work by the officials charged with assessing his performance. The facts, as decided by judge or jury, will certainly play a big part in the ultimate outcome of his trial (assuming there is one). But I'm not going to try to decide them, all by myself, based upon ignorance. If you want to, Parados, help yourself. But it's nothing for anybody to "argue" about in this thread, today.

 

Related Topics

Two original basic human groups? - Discussion by gungasnake
Human origins on Jupiter's moon system? - Discussion by gungasnake
Wait a sec?! Coffee doesn't go there?! - Discussion by tsarstepan
Dinosaurs and carbon dating - Discussion by gungasnake
Don Scott: Plasma Cosmology - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2020 at 04:55:13