Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

"Art is a lie that tells us the truth." - PicassoIsn't it possible that the embryology drawings and the peppered moth photos, while being staged events themselves, could still express a truth about adaptation?I mean, do you disagree that dark trees will lead to a prevalence of dark moths?Sure the photos are fake. Most photos, in one way or another are "fake" - artifice is used to correct or improve them. Do you whine when newspapers retouch photos for clairty?The images aren't being used as confirmational evidence of evolution, but rather to illustrate mechanisms of evolution. Whether or not they actually represent real events or situations has nothing to do with their value as illustrations.That said, I don't think the embryology diagrams should be used; better photographs should be commissioned.

Well, if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3, he's certainly a truth-teller. So what? Jesus taught in parables; a parable is a fictional account (a lie) used to express a truth. 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? 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.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.

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. ...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? 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. 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.

Perhaps, but not in Genesis. God's words are clear. Adam and Eve will perish they day they eat the fruit. But they don't.Your explanation fails a literal reading of the text. Now I don't understand - you don't believe adaptation occurs? Or you don't believe adaptation is an evolutionary activity? I agree. I've already stated that the Haeckel drawings are insufficiently scientific to appear in a text. To my knowledge they don't appear in bio texts anymore. Certainly never in the ones I've had to read for class. On the other hand I'm reading college-level bio texts so maybe high school ones are different. They've never been meant to be. They've only ever been used as an illustration of adaptation through natural selection, which is something the theory of evolution predicts. Sorry, I don't debate web pages. I debate people.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-18-2003]

One thing: (My emphasis added)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. I assumed it followed normal rules of English spelling. 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.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.

And you think that his attitude constitutes libel? Simply ridiculous.To prove libel, you have to demonstrate direct, fallacious, malicious comments that have a negative impact on your percived character. That is to say, they can't just make you feel bad; you have to prove that your reputation among your community was harmed.Since, to a large degree, we're posting anonymously (to each other), none of us know who you are. Nobody reading the comments knows who you are - so how could you argue that your reputation has been harmed? There's actually no difference. Debates are arguments - there's generally percieved to be a winner and a loser at the end because each participant is defending a specific position. Maybe you're thinking of "discussion", where participants work together to solve a problem. That's not what we're doing. Creationists don't seem to stick around here for long; they can't generally defend their arguments. Of course, we always welcome new members, regardless of position... Which claim was that? Do you want me to demonstrate that these terms are not widely used by biologists, or my claim that the distinction between the two is largely semantic? What was the specific claim you thought I was making? Just to be sure. To the contrary; asking someone to support their assertions with evidence is a perfectly reasonable request in a debate.

Yeah.We have no evidence but Robert Gentry's say-so that these halos can only be caused by polonium. We have some considerable evidence that they can be caused by other isotopes.Further reading:Wakefield, J. Richard , 1988, Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", Journal of Geological Education, May, 1988.Odom, L.A., and Rink, W.J., 1989, "Giant Radiation-Induced Color Halos in Quartz: Solution to a Riddle," Science, v. 246, pp. 107-109.Collins, Lorence G., 1997, "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite," http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm, 9 pgs.