Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

If you really believe this, you have been seriously misinformed. For example, a 1990 edition of the textbook Evolution describes the fradulent replacement of human embryo drawings with dog embryo drawings. (Though it is my understanding that even if Haeckel had used human images his point would have been well-made since dog and human embryos are so similar).If a standard biology textbook describes the fraud in 1990, it hardly stands to reason that the 1997 study blew away the scientific community. Your 1995 creationist article references a 1980 article by the (evolutionist) scientist Keith Stewart Thompson. (That's what the '8' at the end of the sentence links to.)I think you really have to ask yourself - if creationists had a handle on the situation for so long, then why do they have to cite evolutionist sources in their own articles?But really, all of this is moot, since scientists have been discrediting Haeckel's illustrations since 1868: So if you are correct, and creationists have known that Haeckel's drawings were fradulent since the 1970s, then the creationists are only a century behind the scientists who were Haeckel's contemporaries.

Get it? 1868. Not 1997.

If this is your assertion, you are thus asserting that both Rutimeyer and His were creationists.Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Or are you making an assumption that these two men were creationists?Please provide evidence.

So, I give you an example of a non-creationist scientist refuting Haeckel in 1874 and I'm not supposed to be "irked" at you continuing to insist that creationists have been the only anti-Haeckelites up until the last decade? His was the first to directly refute Haeckel with a scientific study in the 1870s (versus simply revealing the fraud). Except for the 1990 Evolution textbook I mentioned, that describes it as a fraud. Oh, and the 1980 scientific article I mentioned that your ground-breaking 1995 creationist article cites. Did you even bother reading my post before replying that the diagrams weren't revisited until 1997? Talk about irksome...Quite a pile of assertions in there, also. "Particular intensity" in the past twenty years? Fine, then it should be easy to support your assertion:Give me one example of the Haeckel diagram being presented as factually accurate in a biology textbook from the past twenty years. Just one. Otherwise I can only assume that you are making this stuff up.I have a textbook that still "used the faked image" in 2002. Of course it is described in historical context, and the fraud is mentioned in both the text and the diagram caption. Do you have a problem with that usage?

The vast majority of evolution scientists are involved neither in production of education materials or dealing directly with the public. Again, your view of the scientific community seems a bit skewed. Based on what? an exclamation point in a statement on a cheesy, flashy website intended for school kids? I don't know that he is expressing surprise as much as incredulity or excitement. Reread your source. The books did NOT contain the faked drawings. The source doesn't provide the pre-revision drawings, so it is a bit hard to judge how accurate they were.

No. You're wrong. Since you apparently can't read you own source, I'll post the relevant excerpt here: Get it? The books did NOT contain the faked drawings.I'll say it again - even though the diagrams used in the books were based upon Haeckel's illustrations, they were not necessarily inaccurate. In other words, if they were based on non-fraudulent parts of the drawing, they may be wholly accurate. Unless we have a copy of the pre-revision diagram, we can't make that call.It may simply be that the editors, even though they had an accurate diagram, wanted to distance themselves from the Haeckel controversy, and thus would rather have "based on Nillson" under the figure rather than "based on Haeckel".

This is not necessarily the case, and I have no idea what you are basing "usually" and "very high" upon - an assumption I'd guess. Illustrators routinely make drastic changes to existing figures and still credit the original, even if the revisions change the conclusion taken from the figure (I know I have.)As you are fond of saying yourself, we simply don't have enough information to judge at this time.It is my understanding that portions of Haeckel's illustrations were correct, so depending on which portions were used, the original illustrations may not have been fraudulent and misleading. Without the prerevision diagrams, we don't have enough evidence.There is nothing on the page you reference that suggests anything to me more than damage control over a misconception. The content specifically distances the original illustrations from the fraudulent illustrations, and never admits that the prerevision illustrations were inaccurate.Kenneth Miller claims to be an expert in evolution education. If he was using the fraudulent Haeckel illustrations on face value until 1997, then he is either a fraud or an ignoramus.This message has been edited by the sasquatch aquatic, 06-23-2005 04:54 PM

Wow, you've check nearly all textbooks? How many is that, exactly, that you've checked?Haeckel's fraudulent drawings and their misuse have been unfortunate. However, you should also realize that Haeckel is considered by many to have been an excellent illustrator, and he was the originator of an important type of diagram - that showing corresponding developmental stages in various species.You do realize that the new, revised version of the figure on your posted website is still based on Haeckel's diagram, as is the photo version by Nillson? How exactly does someone fradulently elaborating on some drawings in the 1800's have anything to do with the validity of evolutionary theory? Especially when other scientists reveal the fraud a few years later?It is too bad that it is a "major deal" for you, which seems to paint you as reactionary rather than interested in examining the real evidence for evolution. Just like so many who deny all fossil evidence because a non-scientist tried to pass off a pig-tooth for a homo fossil decades ago.Really, your reaction is akin to me questioning the theory of gravity because a scientist fradulently drew a geocentric diagram of the solar system a few hundred years ago while working under pressure from the church. It's rather off-topic in this thread, but I would sincerely be interested in hearing what statements and what analysis you are referring to. From your statements in other threads it seems you don't even have a grasp of the scientific method, so I don't think you are in a position to judge.

That is really amusing, since the rest of your post is entirely made up of the standard creationist propaganda laundry list. Evolutionary theory does not claim universal common descent."Macro-" and "micro-" evolution are meaningless terms, a way for creationist to explain away evidence for evolution. Abiogenesis Theory is completely separate of the Theory of Evolution, which only deals with existing living things.Besides, there is no good evidence for a Creator of Intelligent Designer except for wishing it were so. If true, that falsifies the "biogenetic law", NOT the Theory of Evolution. (By the way, the biogenetic law was falsified over a hundred years ago.) What specifically about evolutionary theory predicted that there should be a conserved stage of development??? There are many threads in the forum that will falsify this statement with extensive documentation. Also, every fossil and organism is a "transitional," including me and you. And if you mean an organism that has characteristics of say, a land creature and a sea creature, they are living in the world today (a great example is the mudskipper, a fish that hunts on land and has fins suited for both swimming and crawling/climbing/jumping on land).So "transitional" is a vague, rather meaningless term; yet if you mean the classic idea of a transitional, you can go buy one at your local pet store. Not true. The only way there would be no gaps is if an individual from every single generation of every single species on the planet throughout time fossilized, the fossil survive to contemporary times, and humans found it.Gaps are caused by geology and discovery, not by problems with common descent. Then you haven't looked around enough. There are threads in this forum that give excellent explanations. That's true. That's called Lamarckian Evolution and was falsified by science a long time ago. Who maintains that?Since you have examined "nearly all textbooks" in existence, you should be able to give me an example... Sure it has, assuming you mean "speciation". Generally by non-scientists.And again, the fact that someone, scientist or non, commits a fraud has absolutely no bearing on the scientific status of the Theory of Evolution. That is actually support for the Theory of Evolution - the Theory of Evolution predicts that non-functional organs would be lost over time. Evolution is constantly tested. Science routinely test things it cannot directly observe. Macroevolution (speciation) is observed. Every time a genetics paper is published the Theory of Evolution is questioned. You really don't seem to understand what scientists do. Do you think that evolutionary scientists just sit around patting each other on the back?The "convergent DNA evolution" paper we've been discussing in the other thread questions evolution. Do you not see that? Or don't want to see it?If "there never seems to be any questioning of the theory", then you simply don't know what scientific questioning looks like. The truth is that of the millions of biological papers that have been published, none has provided a single falsification of the Theory of Evolution. So, of the two choices - 1) A theory that readily explains the diversity of life with basic known natural laws, which all evidence supports and none falsifies; or 2) A deceitful all-powerful supernatural being that we cannot detect and have absolutely no evidence for; you choose 2?Seems to me it is you who are going with the implausible choice. Noone is "trying to fit" evidence into the Theory of Evolution. The evidence simply fits - no trying involved. Do you see the difference?If the Theory of Evolution is flawed, why hasn't it been falsified yet? Are you really suggesting a world-wide conspiracy of scientists so complete that no one will provide falsifying evidence? Do you see how silly that sounds?Going through your laudry list of problems with the Theory of Evolution, they seem to fall into three categories - 1) The problem is not encompassed by the theory and so isn't really a problem; 2) Fraud, which is non-scientific and thus cannot support or falsify the theory; and 3) Problems with the theory that are flat-out incorrect.I'm realizing that very little of this has to do with Haeckel's drawings; if you are interested in following up the specific points they should be taken to other threads.In any case, your self-proclaimed objectivity does not seem to extend to critical analysis of the standard creationist propaganda.

Just to clarify, the concepts contained within errors in Haeckel's illustrations, intentional or otherwise, are not principle of evolutionary theory; let alone "cornerstone principles."

I believe that is called "throwing the baby out with the bath water."There is no reason to throw out accurate information because other information was forged.If I have one-hundred data points, and I discover that my lab tech made up ten of those points, I don't need to throw out the other ninety data points as well. I better be damn sure that I can support those data points as accurate, but I don't need to act as though they never existed.If Haeckel switched out one embryo image for another, or exaggerated some part of morphology on certain embryos, that does not mean that other information or even the basic concepts that Haeckel was trying to show are also wrong. It just means that they need to be given more scrutiny to ensure that they are accurate. No. It is scientists using embryonic evidence because of the evidence, not salvaging it despite it. The truth is that Haeckel contributed the framework for an important diagram to demonstrate development in relation to evolutionary relationships. He went about it the wrong way, but that does not mean we should give up on that way of viewing things. Indeed, the new, revised, microphotograph-influenced diagram adopted by the textbook you exampled remains a reworking of Haeckel's diagram - it is indeed "based on Haeckel's drawings."All that said, if a scientist was maintaining in the 1990's (or the 1890's for that matter) that Haeckel's gill slits on human embryos were wholly accurate, that scientist would either be ignorant or deceitful. randman, as someone who wishes you'd take time and understand the nuances of scientific communication, I applaud these comments - they are a step in the right direction. Keep it up.

Not all of those concepts are wrong. Hence, when the textbook you cite revised the diagram in 1997, it remained a reworking of the original. Hopefully you realize that this is not the only concept that Haeckel's drawings were used to illustrate.The great point-by-point description that RAZD provided of what evolutionary theory predicts of development can also be illustrated by Haeckel-based diagrams - and his description was accurate.So, Haeckel-based diagrams can be used to illustrate correct concepts. Scientific concepts are more often than not shown to be incorrect or in need of revision. That is in no way a negative attribute, it is rather its most positive attribute. It is self-correcting and open to reinterpretation, unlike other belief systems.Most importantly, the status of a scientific concept rests solely on evidence, not the history of the field of study, or the number of errors or frauds perpetrated in the name of that field of study.