Lucy and Secular Humanism

quote:

---

Is this good enough? Those are 3 solid examples of evolutionists using images to mislead the public, imo.

---

The first image is from a French page on ebusiness.The second is from an Italian company selling miniature figures (it is one of their figures, painted)The third is a cover to the magazine "Creepy" drawn by Frank Frazetta.So taken in context NONE of them is a solid example of evolutionists using images to mislead the public.

quote:

---

PaulK, are you denying that evolutionists for a very long time presented Neanderthal as sub-human?

---

Having read my post, you must know that I neither said nor implied any such thing . All I did was look at the images you referred to in context - and concluded that none of them in that context could be regarded as an attempt by evolutionists to decieve the public. Even though you touted all three as "solid" examples of that very thing. A point that you choose not to answer insted asking if I said something completely different.I furhter add that even if I concede the point it would not demonstrate that there was any attempt by evolutionists to decieve. Indeed who, if not the evolutionists, has been behind the shift to more human and less ape-like images of neandertals ?If you are ho9nest then how do you eplain the nature of your reply ?

In Message 22 you claimed:

quote:

---

Those are 3 solid examples of evolutionists using images to mislead the public, imo

---

In fact, as was pointed out in Message 23 the images came from pages that cannot reasonably be construed as representing science at all

quote:

---

The first image is from a French page on ebusiness.

​

The second is from an Italian company selling miniature figures (it is one of their figures, painted)

​

The third is a cover to the magazine "Creepy" drawn by Frank Frazetta.

---

Yet now you claim

quote:

---

The examples I gave were true, but I did not check the images closely.

---

So essentially you admit that you didn't bother to check the sites, but still maintain that each of the sites represents an attempt by "evolutionists" to deceive the public. Despite the fact that the nature of the sites involved makes that vey implausible and you offer no reason why your claim should not be rejected as clearly absurd.

YOur original accusation claimed that evolutionists were reluctant to give up the "right" to use false images to mislead the public.1) The example in the OP. As yet there is no evidence of fraud - or even that the image concerned is wrong.2) Haeckel's drawings - Haeckel was promoting his own ideas. Those were rejected (you will not find a recent textbook supporting Haeckel's version of recapitulation). The drawings may have been retained in textbooks but there is no indication of any deceptive use and they have been replaced.3) As has been pointed out it is the evolutionists who are producign the more accurate images, while only popular sources produce "ape-like" Neandertals. This example contradicts your thesis - unless you wish to turn around and start to claim that the more ape-like drawings are accurate. You can't even show that the older images had any intent to deceive.

The full text:

quote:

---

The idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was proposed over a century ago by the biologist Ernst Haeckel. He also made the drawings on which the drawings above are based. Periodically, people rediscover that in making them, he altered certain details to emphasize his theory. Though they are schematic, the story they illustrate here has stood the test of time.

---

I should add that there is other text stating that the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is "a distortion of the truth"Obviously there is no intent to deceive here.I would add that if you can find better, easily available drawings in the Public Domain I suggest that you notify the author. If not, then it seems to me that providing a corrected version of Haeckel' drawings may have been the most practical option available.

Since Haeckel's distortiosn were to support an idea that is NOT TAUGHT AS FACT they could not have deceived the readers. So retainign them is not automatically deceptive.As to the Neanderthal images you would need to explain why erroneous images would be evidence of deliberate deception. Even in textbooks (which are often out of date by their nature).

quote:

---

The drawings are still being used, and still were used, to also support the scaled down version of recapitulation that evolutionists still teach.

---

You have not shown that Hackel's drawings themselves are stillb eing used.
And the modern idea of recpitualtion is not a "scaled down" version of Haeckel's ideas. Rather, it is based on the EARLIER ideas of Von Baer.

quote:

---

They used faked images to present their case.

​

I have proven that, and there really is no debate. You guys just don't want to own up to any wrong-doing or weaknesses on your side.

---

You haven't proven any such thing. You haven't provided one shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with the actual drawings.on the website.But you are right about one thing - there is no debate. Just the usual creationist smear tactics.

Nobody is claiming that Haeckel's drawings are entirely accurate. Unfortunately Haeckel's "fraud" - if fraud it was - was to support his own ideas which are rejected and not taught.You have yet to support your claim that there is a pattern of deliberate deception.You are however providing evidence that there is a pattern of creationists making false accusations.