Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?
7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 306 (40290)
05-15-2003 5:57 PM


Hope this isn't a repost but why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school? They have already been proven wrong in 1874 yet they are still being taught as facts all over the world. Even Haeckel himself admitted to making up the drawings.
quote:
This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't ... These are fakes.'
(Michael Richardson, in an interview with Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, August 11, 1997. )
quote:
"he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals." ... "Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts.
(Elizabeth Pennisi, Michael Richardson, 'Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered', Science 277(5331):1435, September 5, 1997.)
quote:
Stephen Jay Gould: "... it has fascinated me ever since the New York City public schools taught me Haeckel's doctrine, that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, fifty years after it, had been abandoned by science."
(Ontogeny and phylogeny, Stephen Jay Gould, ISBN 0-674-63940-5, 1977, p1)
So why are they still being taught almost 130 years after they have been proven false? Why do evolutionists feel the need to lie to teach evolution? Below you can find a comparision between Haeckel's drawings and the truth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 6:07 PM 7 has not replied
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 6:26 PM 7 has not replied
 Message 4 by John, posted 05-15-2003 6:35 PM 7 has replied
 Message 34 by bulldog98, posted 05-16-2003 11:20 AM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 5 of 306 (40296)
05-15-2003 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
05-15-2003 6:35 PM


Here are a list of textbooks that are still being used in schools today that teach Haeckel's drawings as facts:
1.Alton Biggs, Chris Kapicka & Linda Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-02-825431-7
2. Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece & Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, Fifth Edition (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1999). ISBN 0-8053-6573-7
3. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9
Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3
4. George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher's Edition (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998). ISBN 0-03-016724-8
5. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5
6. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology, Fifth Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-436265-9
Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2
7. William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3
8. Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 05-15-2003 6:35 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 6:49 PM 7 has replied
 Message 14 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 9:00 PM 7 has not replied
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2003 11:38 PM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 7 of 306 (40305)
05-15-2003 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulK
05-15-2003 6:49 PM


I was unaware of this change and I am glad that such a change has been made. However take a look at what Miller and Levine said:
quote:
As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!
The fact still stands that other textbooks are using this fradulent material and that Haeckel's drawings are still being taught as prove of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 6:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 7:22 PM 7 has replied
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 05-15-2003 8:14 PM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 11 of 306 (40313)
05-15-2003 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
05-15-2003 7:22 PM


quote:
The report, "An Evaluation of Ten Recent Biology Textbooks," which will be published in September by Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, examines ten of the most popular high school and college level textbooks and issues grades based on their presentations of the theory of evolution.
For example, textbooks present students with drawings of similarities between fish and human embryos, and claim that these similarities are evidence that fish and humans share a common ancestor. And, photographs of light and dark colored moths on tree trunks are used to teach students how natural selection altered the proportions of the two forms when trees were darkened by pollution during the industrial revolution.
"But scientists have known for over a century that the embryo drawings were faked," said biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells, author of the report and a senior fellow of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. "The embryos actually look very different. And all of the peppered-moth pictures were staged .Scientists have known since the 1980s that the moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. And yet textbooks have failed to change with the times."
"Science is the search for truth," explained Wells. "Most biology textbooks are simply lying to students about the evidence for evolution....
I received my source from the above passages. The evaluation included the 2000 Biology, Fifth Edition. Even after claiming to have fixed the problem, the evalutation has concluded that the textbook is sill misleading in some areas about Haeckel's drawings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 05-15-2003 7:22 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 8:32 PM 7 has replied
 Message 30 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2003 3:41 AM 7 has not replied
 Message 52 by derwood, posted 05-23-2003 12:38 PM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 16 of 306 (40324)
05-15-2003 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
05-15-2003 8:32 PM


quote:
"Art is a lie that tells us the truth." - Picasso
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises (the art) himself as an angel(the lie) of light(the truth...?)
2 Corinthians 11:14
note: brackets added in verse to make a point.
quote:
Isn't it possible that the embryology drawings and the peppered moth photos, while being staged events themselves, could still express a truth about adaptation?
what does drawings of embryo have to do with adaptation? How do lies tell truth?
quote:
I mean, do you disagree that dark trees will lead to a prevalence of dark moths?
You mean microevolution? I don't think any creationist denies microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand....
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 8:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 9:40 PM 7 has replied
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 10:15 PM 7 has replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 20 of 306 (40335)
05-15-2003 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mister Pamboli
05-15-2003 9:40 PM


these are strange questions...
quote:
SO have you found a school that teaches Haeckel's drawings yet? And are you in a position to tell us what teaching a drawing means?
1. I never knew I was suppose to find a school that does. If a school uses textbooks that contain the drawings, what do you think?
2. Let me put it in words you understand: Schools use Haeckel's drawings as a way of teaching evolution. I thought this was obvious and did not need any explaination, since this is a creation/evolution forum.
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 9:40 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-16-2003 2:35 AM 7 has replied
 Message 32 by Karl, posted 05-16-2003 4:59 AM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 21 of 306 (40340)
05-15-2003 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
05-15-2003 10:15 PM


quote:
Well, if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3, he's certainly a truth-teller. So what?
whatever satan said was a lie. Prove me wrong
quote:
Jesus taught in parables; a parable is a fictional account (a lie) used to express a truth.
A lie is something that is meant to deceive. Jesus did not use parables to deceive, so you cannot say that a parable is a lie. Parable is the derived from the Greek work Parabole meaning comparison or likeness.
quote:
Lying to tell the truth is a phenomenon as old as storytelling. Why do you reject it in this case but allow it for Jesus?
You use the wrong word here. Sub "Using parables" into "Lying". A parable is a method of teaching using a comparison between two things.
quote:
"That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. And great crowds gathered about Him, so that He got into a boat and sat there; and the whole crowd stood on the beach."
"And He told them many things in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away. Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear."
"Then the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
"And He answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them.'"
"But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear." (Matthew 13:1-16 RSV)
quote:
There's no difference between them. That's why you'll find that biologists don't use those terms. And that's not even relevant. I've never seen the peppered moth example used to support anything but how environment shapes morphology. (Microevolution, in your terms.) Adaptation leading to speciation is another question that takes more than some moths to settle.
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species."
quote:
You still haven't answered why these images can't be used as illustrations. Even if the moths were glued to the trees by research assistants it doesn't change the fact that the environment of the moths selects for certain pigmentation. Staging a photograph to help illustrate that is not misleading.
I never knew I was supposed to answer this? I'm not really sure what you are asking.
Click here, might answer question
Note: sorry if I have missed your posts, while I was typing out a response, brad and pamboli made several posts that I missed. I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. However, it is late and I regret to leave your questions and comments unanwsered.
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 10:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2003 2:04 AM 7 has replied
 Message 27 by zephyr, posted 05-16-2003 2:17 AM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 36 of 306 (40579)
05-18-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
05-16-2003 2:04 AM


quote:
Not really the topic for this, but let's see if I can do it quickly:
Basic Genesis story: God makes perfect garden. God puts tree of knowledge of good and evil in middle and tells Adam "If you eat of this tree you will die that day." The serpent comes up and tells them "God's wrong; you won't die that day but rather, you will become like god, knowing good and evil." They eat the fruit of the tree. God says "They have become like us(?), knowing good and evil." They don't die that day but rather, 930-some years later.
Who's telling the truth here? The serpent's story is the one that actually happens. Seems simple to me.
Scripture distinguishes three types of death. First, there is physical death, which is the seperation of body and soul. The second type of death is spiritual death (which is the case in this situation) and the third death is eternal death.
"The aspect of spiritual death that overtook our first parents immediately upon their act of sin. Alienation toward God was shown by their vain attempt to hide from Him when He came to have fellowship with them in the cool of the evening (gen. 3:8) It was apparent from their attitude of guilty fear toward him (3:10), in the curse of expulsion from the Garden of Eden (where they had enjoyed intimate and cordial fellowship with Him), in the curse of toil and pain both in the eking out of a living from the soil and in the process of childbirth, and in the eventual death of the body and its reversion to the soil from which it was made (3:16-19,23-24). From that moment on, Adam and Eve fell into a state of spiritual death, separated from the living God through their violation of His covenant."
Spiritual death is described in Ephesians 2:1-3.
Further reading is available here: Page not found - Apologetics Press
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
quote:
...via a fictional narrative.
The moth photographs are not meant to decieve but rather to demonstrate something that actually happens. A kind of visual parable. Unless you disagree that dark moths can hide better on dark trees?
going further off-topic into a whole differnet topic which this thread was not meant to be about... Firstly, the author of the article is a creationist, like myself. We don't believe in evolution hence the reason why we don't believe in the pepper moth as evidence of any evolutionary activity. Secondly, you have interperted the article wrong. Haeckel's drawings and moth photographs are two seperate topics. In Haeckel's case, the pictures were faked and meant to decieve since none of it is real and in moth photographs, though faked, we know that there were two different colours of moths. No one ever said that the different coloured moths were a made-up fantasy so I have no idea where you are coming up with your accusations. Thirdly, peppered moths are not evidence of evolution. Even non-creationists scientists are having second thoughts about peppered moths as evidence of evolution. No webpage found at provided URL: www.the-scientist.com/yr1999/may/opin_990524.html. Further reading of this found here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm
The Quixotic Message
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp
quote:
Your definitions are exactly what I expected (I've heard those terms before) but you have yet to provide evidence that they're in use by mainstream biologists. Also it's not logically clear why there should be a distinction because the same mechanism can account for both phenomenon.
First of all biologist call macroevolution a "fact of evolution".
No webpage found at provided URL: http:///RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution.html. I'm suprised you would try to say otherwise. Christian critique found in the following link:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp
quote:
What I'm asking is, why can't a fictional or staged photograph be used to illustrate something that happens in real life?
Is it as bad to include artist's conception sketches in astronomy texts? Or illustrations in the bible?
Is it ok for newspapers to retouch photographs to make them clearer or to remove visual artifacts? I once read about a sports magazine using photoshop on a picture of a runner to remove a radio antenna that appeared to jut from the runners chin, an accident of alighment between the camera, runner, and coach. Does that make the photograph any less "true"? Should the magazine have warned people that the real scene didn't look exactly like it did in the photograph they printed?
Illustrations aren't evidence and have never been claimed to be. They're just teaching aids to make certain points clearer. Whether or not the photograph recorded an actual event or not is irrelavant.
Please refer to the above lines that have provided.
[This message has been edited by 7, 05-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2003 2:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2003 4:05 PM 7 has not replied
 Message 48 by nator, posted 05-19-2003 1:54 PM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 37 of 306 (40582)
05-18-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Mister Pamboli
05-16-2003 2:35 AM


quote:
Read the title you gave the topic. The best way to find out why is to ask, don't you think? Find a school, find yer answer
I don't have to find a school because my school uses Haeckel's drawings hence my reasoning in creating a thread dedicated to the topic of Haeckel's drawings. Theres your answer.
quote:
First rule of critical thinking - look for assumptions and question them. I question your assumption that a school using a textbook uses all the material in it. I certainly didn't use the entire textbook when I was at school.
1. Just because you didn't use one part of a textbook doesn't mean that someone else didn't.
2. No i did not make any assumption that a school uses an entire textbook. Nor does the school have to mention anything about Haeckel's drawings. If the textbook contains them. a student can find them when he or she is using the textbook as study material.
3. Don't jump to conclusions and make up liable comments.
4. I question your assumption of my assumption that i did not make.
quote:
I'm questioning your assumption that schools teach using Haeckel's actual drawings. The best way to find out is to find a school and ask them. Why is it so difficult, when you claim it is so widespread?
I question your assumption that it is difficult for me to find a school to back my claims. Once again you have made accusations and made liable comments in an attempt to create defamation of my character.
Oh and the teacher that used Haeckel's drawings as evidence of evolution was fresh out of teacher's college. I know she knows that Haeckel's drawings were false which leaves me to wonder why she would use fradulent material to teach evolution.
Note: forgive my lateness in reply. I will try to find time in between weeks to answer your questions. I look forward to the upcoming "conversation."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-16-2003 2:35 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2003 4:16 PM 7 has replied
 Message 43 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-18-2003 11:14 PM 7 has not replied
 Message 44 by Coragyps, posted 05-18-2003 11:51 PM 7 has not replied
 Message 46 by bulldog98, posted 05-19-2003 10:32 AM 7 has not replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 40 of 306 (40588)
05-18-2003 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
05-18-2003 4:16 PM


a quick reply before I leave
quote:
The word you're looking for here is "libel", or in the part of speech you're using it as, "libellous". Of course, strictly speaking Mr. P's comments do not even come close to approaching libel, as no one would agree that they defame your character. Maybe your argument, but not your character. It's not libel to disagree with someone.
yes my mistake. but its libelous not libellous.
libel - to misrepresent damagingly. IN this case Mr. P made up false accusations to make me look like a lunatic who can't back his claims. so his libelous remarks were against me and not the argument.
And no I never said anything about libel comments being related to disagreement in this topic.
I will get back to your questions later on. till then.
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2003 4:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2003 4:51 PM 7 has replied

7
Inactive Junior Member


Message 42 of 306 (40603)
05-18-2003 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
05-18-2003 4:51 PM


I was in a rush so I will explain myself better now. First of all, libel is the act of misrepresenting which he has done to my responses. His remarks were not directed towards you so I don't expect you to understand but place yourself in my shoes. How would you answer his response when he accuses you with something you never claimed? How would you answer someone that accuses you of making assumptions when he jumps to assumptions about you? Once again, I feel you wouldn't understand since his remarks were not directed to you. However, who are you to say that I did not feel slandered? I actually felt he was trying to insult me.
quote:
That''s simply ridiculous. Perfectly rational people can't always back up their claims, so claiming that you can't back up your claims is not making you into a lunatic. And anyway, the defense for libel is the truth - if he can show that you can't substanitaite your claims, you have no argument for libel.
You have misunderstood my post. I never claimed that by not backing up my claims will me a lunatic. What I meant were his remarks were meant to downplay me as a person of reason, intelligence etc. For example:
"Read the title you gave the topic. The best way to find out why is to ask, don't you think? Find a school, find yer answer"
I felt I gave a satisfactory answer to his response but then he tries to talk to me as a superior instead of an equal (I tried to treat this entire forum as equals, we all know how a debate works).
"read the title you gave the topic" Seriously what kind of remark is that? He tries to make me sound stupid. sorry bud, but even my father did not speak to me like that.
"First rule of critical thinking - look for assumptions and question them. I question your assumption that a school using a textbook uses all the material in it. I certainly didn't use the entire textbook when I was at school."
What are you my teacher? Once again I am bombarded by a cocky attitude directed towards me. Must I go on to explain my reasoning?
quote:
Your claims are pretty hollow; it's pretty clear you're using them to shore up a losing argument. I find that rather disingenuous. It's a poor sport who enters a debate with such a thin skin.
I don't know where to begin to tell you how wrong you are. If you feel I'm making up baseless accusations over frustration of a debate, you're just simply wrong. I came to this debate as a reasonable person and now I am attacked by insults and false accusations.
"losing argument" I never knew this was an argument. I thought this was a debate. Guess I was wrong. I feel I have provided the evidence, I tried to answer all the posts though it is overwhelming since the majority seem to be evolutionists.
The only "argument" lost here is the macroevolution/microevolution which you haven't even acknowledged yet. Why don't you show me evidence to support your claims when it isn't that difficult?.<-------Doesn't it upset you when people write like this?
------------------
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
[This message has been edited by 7, 05-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2003 4:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2003 3:36 AM 7 has not replied
 Message 47 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-19-2003 12:00 PM 7 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024