Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

I have not followed the full argument but my take on Haekels is as follows -Scientist are human. It is no surprise that advocates of a theory are more inclined to be positive about evidence that favours said theory than evidence against. It does not take a genius of psychology to realise that we are more prone to believing evidence for that which we support than evidence that opposes that which we support. This is human nature.So is established evolutionary theory just the above on a grand scale?If anything the whole Haekels debacle suggests not.
Who exposed Haekel? Scientists. Who ultimately acknowledged the errors in thinking and Haekels fraud? Scientists and science. Why is Haekels evidence no longer part of established scientific thinking? Because it has been refuted. By means of scientific fact based empirical investigation.The very purpose of the scientific method is to achieve objectivity and to free our conclusions from philosophical bias.
We as humans are very possibly incapable of true objectivity but the methods of science, the testing of theories validity against the realities of nature are our means of acknowldging this fact and overcoming our petty human limitations and restrictions.If anything the Haeckels situation is a fine example of a short term human desire driven error ridden conclusion being overturned by the methods of science and the underlying quest for truth that ultimately underpins all scientific investigation.The truth can always be questioned. Where philosophical positions lead to lies and errors regarding the natural world sufficient questioning will expose said lies and errors. Nature cares not for our prejudices and dispositions.The broad theory of evolution has stood up to such relentless questioning. Haeckels work did not. The reasons for this should be obvious.Unless of course you have your own philosophical axe to grind..... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Who exactly and how? Who actually refuted the work experimentally/observationally and what is the history of this? I have yet to hear of any laboratory based conclusions of any creationist "scientist" so any such info would be warmly welcomed!!! Nobody is claiming Haeckel's work as something it is not. You cannot however dismiss the whole of embyology and it's relevance to evolutionary theory based on Haeckel's folly.Haeckel may have been wrong but using this as a reason to dismis all embryology as evidence is equally as disingenuous.How do you explain the various stages that whale embryos go throgh for example?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You fail to answer the questionStraggler writes Nobody is claiming Haeckel's drawingas proof of anything. We have better evidence these days thanks to technological advancements. Are you really suggesting that current scientific thinking is based on Haeckels drawings rather than more recent embryonic analysis and observation.Do you consider embryology as no evidence for evolution at all?
Ignore Haeckels. I mean current embryology examples.How do you explain the various stages of the whale embryo (for example) except in terms of evolution?

Yes he was opposed to Darwinism but Darwin, as I undwerstand it, actually used his embyonic research rather than Haeckels when examining evidence for evolution.
You specifically said that creation scientists had exposed Haeckels fraud rather than it being uncovered by the methods of conventional science. This is just not true. That question is a bit like the infamous "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Answering it in any way that accepts the validity of the question condemns.
I do not accept that "evos" do continually use faked data as evidence for evolution. So I don't need to justify it and would not justify it if what you were claiming was actually true.However Haeckels forgerey does not make it any less true that embryonic development is evidence for evolution. Maybe not in the simplistic and very obvious way that Haeckel claimed. But evidence nevertheless.Haeckels aside - Do you dispute that embryonic development provides evidence for evolution?By detracting from the true nature of emryology based evidence for evolution Haeckel has actually done more damage to the theory of evolution than good.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

1) Do you still claim it was creationist scientists who unearthed Haeckels fraud rather than standard established scientific empirical methods and bodies? This was my main starting point.
I.e. That if anything the whole Haeckels debacle demonstrates that science is interested in, and has methods to ensure that, discovering the truth rather than supporting ideology is the ultimate aim.
Thus it actually refutes the main thrust of the overall point you are making.2) Do you deny that embryology provides evidence for evolution? Not in repsonse to me you did not. However I am equally to blame for not reading the rest of this thread thoroughly enough before commenting. Having read the paper more thoroughly and having seen the full line you quote in part, I think that acknowledging Haeckels fraud whilst arguing that the evidence provided by embryology for evolution is worth re-examining in this context is perfectly legitimate.In short they are saying that Haeckels drawings were fradulant but that aspects of his conclusions were not necesarily wrong as a result of this.However........
Hiding fraud is dishonest.
If there are textbooks and teaching aids that use these drawings as bone fide examples of the link between embryology and evolutionary theory without the history of Haeckels fraud also being explained to students then I would utterly agree that this is wrong and should be stopped.Is there any evidence that this is actually happening?Frankly I would have thought that we now have enough photographic evidence of embryos to make these drawing unnecessary anyway.I'll ask again as you have failed to answer the question thus far.......
Do you deny that embryology provides any evidence at all for evolutionary theory?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In Message 194 you gave the following answer - Now you say - Actually some cursory research suggests that an embryologist called Wilhelm actually exposed Haeckels fraud. However, other than suggesting that you do not necessarily know what you are talking about this is neither here nor there.
I am not familiar with the religious views or detailed work of either Wilhelm or Von Baer. However I can find no reference to either man ever having been described as a “creation scientist” by anyone other than you.
Can you provide a link to any source that does indeed declare any of the exposers of Haeckels fraud as “creation scientists”? Or is this a clear case of you adding 2 and 2 to make 5?Both men were members of fully established conventional scientific institutions and bodies. As far as I can ascertain neither man ever published any scientific work that set out to support creationist claims or directly did so. I think it is fair to say that both men considered themselves scientisists. Not "creation scientists".
As is the very basis of my point Haeckel was exposed by the very methods, bodies and institutions of conventional science that are in place to ensure veracity and avoid falsehood.
In short, the Haeckels debacle is ultimately a victory for scientific objectivity. Not an example of some sort of idealogical cover-up as you are suggesting.
The methods of science and the scientific community are exactly what they are such that falsehoods will be exposed.Thus the very example you use to demonstrate your main point - that there is some sort of "evo" conspiracy - is actually turned on it's head. It actually demonstrates that ultimately science reaches accurate conclusions no matter how winding the path may be. Obviously that is not what I said at all Actually I agreed that if the false drawings are being used as examples of bona fide data in text books rather than explaining Haeckels fraud then this is wrong and should be stopped.I asked you if there were any examples of this taking place. I shall take your silence on this matter to mean that you do not have any examples. Furthere admit....? Are you saying that because Haeckel exaggerated his evidence that any idea he had (or any even vaguely similar idea to those that he had) must necessarily be wrong?
Does fraud equal refutation in your view?
How do you logically come to that conclusion? My understanding (and I am happy to be corrected as I claim no expertise) is that all whale embryos go through the same early developmental stages as other mammals. In many cases this Includes the initial formation of hind limbs. In the case of whale embryos these hind limb buds later degenerate whilst in the case of land mammals these hind limbs go on to develop into fully formed limbs.How do you explain this obviously inefficient formation process in creationist terms?

Straggler says So no examples that these drawings are actually being used as evidence for evolution then? What exactly is your whole point? I would suggest I am equally as familiar as you seem to be. Possibly, having done some cursory research, maybe even a little more so. So from this can we take it that you are utterly unable support your assertion that those that uncovered Haeckels fraud are in fact "creation scientists"? Nobody but you has ever referred to them as such. Is this correct? Indeed. It is also fundamentally true that the very term "creation scientist" is a nonsense. How can a method of investigation that places the conclusion before the evidence be in any way scientific?Those that exposed Haeckel were scientists in the sense that they made conclusions based on empirical evidence. Objective conclusions. Objective conclusions made using the standard methods of science, the results of which were distributed and communicated via the wider methods of the scientific community. Methods designed to weed out falsehood and maximise objectivity.These are the exact methods that "creationist scientists" obviously have to avoid as they are, by very definition, incapable of being objective or of deriving objective conclusions. How can one be objective whe one "knows" the conclusion being sought?The uncovering of Haeckel's fraud was a victory for the objectivity of results as derived via the methods, institutions, bodies and practitioners of science. Not "creation science" as you stupidly claim. The false data is not being used as evidence for evolution.
Aspects of the ideas Haeckel proposed are however being re-examined and indeed advocated in the paper in question.You seem to be confusing and conflating the faked evidence with the potential validity of the underlying idea under examination. Whether your flawed position is derived from incomprehension of the difference between the two or bloody minded determination to make a false point I am not sure.Again I ask - Are you saying Haeckels ideas, or ideas of any similarity, have actually been empirically refuted?If not what exactly is your problem here? Which facts are inaccurate?
How do you explain the initial development and subsequent regression of hind limb buds in whale embryos in creationist terms? Are you saying the pelvis contracts? Do you have empirical evidence for your answer or are you just making assertions in line with your beliefs? Fairly treating the data? And yet you advocate "creationist science" with its inherently and indisputably predefined conclusions as a valid form of scientific investigation? Isn't that a tad hypocritical........?