Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (parasitology), under Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of Tulane University’s graduate program) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, CA. He later graduated Ed.S. in Science Education from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there.
This kind of puzzles me as to what a Liberty University BSc and MSc are worth because no such course in biology to my knowledge teaches a creationist world view.
Are these degrees BSc in name or is there a basic standard of attainment? To my knowledge it is impossible to become a doctor if you subscribe to Land’s Theory rather than Pasteur. The Four Humours are a quaint notion of the past rather than vital reading and any doctor adhering to them would quickly find himself drummed out.
So it puzzles me that Mark Armitage has a career in Biology, considering he doesn’t believe in it.
Mark managed a working electron microscopy laboratory (SEM and TEM) at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. In 2003 he moved his laboratory to the Creation Research Society Van Andel Creation Research Center in AZ. His lab is still vibrant and is still producing publications.
Wait? The ICR has a freaking electron microscope? What for? I mean what are they looking for that confirms the presence of a divine Jehovah (rather than Brahma) and that Ancient Hindus and Jews and Chinese and Egyptians lived alongside T-Rex?
Until recently, Mark served as the Manager for the Electron and Confocal Microscopy Suite in the Biology Department at California State University Northridge. Mark was suddenly terminated by the Biology Department when his discovery of soft tissues in Triceratops horn was published in Acta Histochemica.
He is currently seeking relief in a legal action for wrongful termination and religious discrimination by the University. But here is the thing? I don’t think that’s why he is being fired. Scientists are seldom terminated for discovering something.
Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.
See bone is alive it contains cells called osteoblasts and osteoclasts that build and tear down bone in constant remodelling allowing it to deal with the stresses and strains of normal life and indeed fractures. To find fossil evidence of them is kind of cool.
The prior notion was that millions of years should cause such soft tissue to degrade, however newer theories think that in specific cases the soft tissue can be mummified and preserved particularly if it is kept in an anaerobic state.
Not one of these ideas pushes fort the fact that the Triceratops in question is 4000 years old by the way.
A scientist has filed a lawsuit against the California State University, Northridge saying he was terminated from his job due to his religious views after he discovered soft tissue on a triceratops fossil which supported his creationist view.
Creationism is not a religious world view any more than believing in a flat earth is a religious world view. NASA is unlikely to hire a flat earther or a geocentricist. Mark was hired specifically to operate an electron microscope and do science and to make the 4000 year old claim on this soft tissue is frankly astoundingly bad science.
Armitage believes that these bones are 4000 years old at the most and allegedly give credence to the notion that these dinosaurs were around humans until relatively recently. The scientist’s findings, which indicate that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago, were published in July 2013 in a peer-reviewed scientific journal but don’t mention his personal views.
This is like me producing a pile of research and then claiming that since my research is valid that my completely invalid personal beliefs also hold true. All Mark Armitage has discovered is soft tissue. It does not support his 6000 year old universe where we all came from two separate incidents of colossal incest and genetic bottle necks that are normally fatal (Adam and Eve/ Noah). Nor does it square with the tonnes of archeological evidence for a human society older than 4000 BC or the evidence for 2.6 billion years of life.
This is not the termination of an employee because of his religious views but the termination of an employee who literally believes in fairy tales and who is utilising actual research in an intellectually dishonest manner. This is not a silencing of scientific speech but the literal claim that Triceratops lived alongside human beings. If this were true, Mark Armitage would be in line for a Nobel Prize.
And it shows, Mark’s planning to sue for his termination. I disagree. Mark took a normal paper that he wrote and spun it to his creationist friends and is utilising actual science with additions to spread nonsense. To point out how ridiculous this is? We also found soft tissue from a T-Rex that made the news a while back. So according to Mark (who seems to have forgotten that this isn’t the first discovery of soft tissue from a dinosaur) both T-Rex and Triceratops coexisted 4000 years ago.
Yet we see absolutely no evidence of any such bones being kept with pride. Considering we mount deer heads with grandiose horns and the skulls of elephants on our walls with equal pride? Considering neandrathal art was quite explicit in their hunting of mammoth but not of any triceratops. It puzzles me that humans with our fascination for trophies from hunts and our pride and value in the remains of large predators… would not seek to prove ourselves by hunting a T-Rex. We see plenty of lions and tigers and bears and deer and buffalo and elephant but not one triceratops or stegosaurus or diplodocus or t-rex brought down by skill and artifice of mankind. Not one skeleton marked by the blades of our fore fathers. And yet Mark here is willing to claim that the mere existence of soft tissue is indicative of a triceratops surviving the Cretaceous and living in North America alongside other Dinosaurs and humanity.
This is not science but a fantastic leap of applied religion. See the bones date back to the cretaceous but the soft tissue flies in the face of everything we know. So you have two logical steps. Either the bones are 4000 years old or so. Or there is a process to preserve soft tissue. The fact is the discovery of the first soft tissue evidence was a happy coincidence and told us where to look for more. However the bones are still 70 to 80 million years old. There is no rational reason to think they are 4000 years old and think that there is simply a whopping great big gap between these handful of outliers and the bulk of dinosaurs.
Unless you think that all dinosaurs lived 4000 years ago and were all vegetarians.
I often joked that perhaps the real reason Christians were eaten by lions was because they couldn’t tell carnivore from herbivore?
Mark wasn’t fired because he discovered something that was challenging evolution.
He was fired because he showed a completely lack of intellectual honesty and was misrepresenting discoveries in order to make a personal profit as a speaker of creationism. And in this law suit? Mark has won no matter what.
Either Mark wins and so allows the usage of real science to make fallacious claims by protecting it as freedom of religion. Or Mark loses the cases and becomes a poster child for the expelled trope of creationists where he profits from travelling about claiming that he is the creationist science tried to silence.