The title of this post is what I think Mark Armitage should call his personal diary of the events that ended in his dismissal from California State University, Northridge (CSUN). This is a cash cow waiting to happen after all, he can get the sympathy from all the poor persecuted Christians and then we can never learn the real story as to why he got fired even though CSUN is pretty clear on the fact that his employment was only temporary and not permanent.
So Mark if you read this post ever and you like the title "The Creationist who got fired" just throw a link to my blog in your book. I think this title would fit well next to the title of your other book "Jesus is like my Scanning Electron Microscope". On a side-note, if you think scientists lack a sense of humor and you know anything about scanning electron microscopes go read the reviews at Amazon. Top class reviews with massive amounts of irony.
It should be noted, that the one issue that lawyers defending Mark Armitage are very adamant in pointing out in this case is that Armitage is a published scientist in a accredited scientific journal with a publication entitled "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus." (link, subscription only). Other than this article, I cant find much about him publishing in any other journals, so I think its just this one article. Although, he does now work for the
Institute for Creation Research, so he may have manuscripts in the Journal of Creation.
So, what does this paper say? I mean it seems there is a horrible misunderstanding by creationists about this. In the manuscript their is ZERO mention that the Earth is only 6 thousand years old, there is ZERO mention of god, there is in fact ZERO mention of anything creationist. As such there is no reason to reject this paper according to peer review as it is scientifically sound. I will add, I have only briefly glanced through the manuscript so I could be wrong about the soundness of the article. However, even if it is faulty. There is no creationism, it is written from an evolutionary perspective.
With this in mind, then we see that this is the reason it was published. This is when we need to realize this is not creationist science. This is real science. Granted, he holds absurd views on how old the earth is and this makes him lacks credibility, but his article does not support a creationist view at all.
So why he got fired? Well, that is still unknown but I am sure the court case will get to the bottom of that. To point out one thing though, he did freely express his opinion on the age of the Earth with students, and this is in direct conflict with the CSUN biology curriculum. Teach the Controversy?