Then, he cannot "mine" the claim that he is a "published author who is being punished for his Creationisst beliefs"
His publications (at least the juried ones) are all apparently silent on his "conclusions". WHY? because his data and methods would be scrutinized and would be reviewed for any questions of improprieties or poor science.
He would probably have to include the G Tech lab ork and include the Ga geochemist as an author.
I wonder whether the Ga Tech staff could support his claims when it became known that the samples had residues of modern carbon or were "cleaned up" with a method that didnt account for where any C14 may have come from?
His entire methodology , that which resulted in his claim that the horn contained soft tissue that measured 40000 years old, was at least flawed and he apparently failed to disconnect the methodology and the conclusions in his classrooms.
That provides for an annual review of his career performance that would conclude that, at best, he is incompetent, and at worst, has suborned indivuals to commit a fraud of the "piltdown" level.
Course that is all my opinion but my opinion has been developed over the past years when the information in this case gradually unfolded.
!. None of his juried papers contain anything about the potential age of the horn. They only reported the fossils makeup and the existence of "Soft tissue". Apparently, they were all "methods papers" (Other scientists whove reported "Soft tissue" from Hell Creek fossils have all recognized the great age that the bone beds represent).
2. Armitage's Creationist conclusions are separate from any papers he prepared for the juried literature. He had susbsequently self published a " Creation friendly" book on the "age implications" of soft tissue apparently after the samples were run by Ga TEch
3. I dont believe the Ga Tech isotope lab was a participant in any methodological fraud because they were apparently not given any QA data or facts involved . The shellac incidents were reported several years ago when the whole batches of data came forward through several Creationist "research Institutes", (like the ICR). Did they support the C14 lab work with ICR funding??
4. The subsequent scientific critique included in the Phryngula and SandWalk blogs, correctly stated the obvious about the C14
a. either the sample was incorrectly analyzed and results were suspect
b. . The C14 method itself needs scrapping (even Christian geochemist Roger Wiens has stated that C14 methodology is robust and allows for an error bar of about one to two prcent and the method has a window of useability that does NOT include stretching the methodology back to the Cretaceous
5. The Hell Creek formation bone beds have a well established and widely supported age range. The HELL CREEK has been measured extensively and ghas been found to be
NO OLDER THAN about 70 million years and NO YOUNGER than about 66 million years. Anything found within these beds would have to fit those ages (unless the samples were "doctored" or analyzed incorrectly or that the soft tissue really was of a younger apparent age either by natural C14 contamination or by C14 contamination that was entered with intent to deceive) .
IS he worth keeping as a dispassionate science teacher in a public institution?