Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

ARN provides a list of the textbooks that Jonathan Wells has evaluated on his own idosyncratic criteria. 8 of those either use Haeckel's drawings or a re-drawn illustration along similar lines. Of course this doesn't tell us what the context is so I can't say whether any of these texts present the pictures as 'fact' and certainly not as a 'fact' supporting Haeckel's theories.TTFN,WK

I read Richardson's comments and was frankly surprised, and wondered if he was reacting to the fall-out of going public with the error.I had thought for instance that the earliest embryos or early stages prior were not very similar, but the hour-glass idea was on vogue where they became more similar and diverged again.Maybe I am missing something. He also says Haeckel's early critics did not give "persuasive evidence", but it seems like they did offer very persuasive evidence. On the whole, those comments just seemed out of place.

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".

Wrong. They were inaccurate, which is why they changed them and admitted they were inaccurate. What you fail to see is that "based on Haeckel's drawings" usually means a very high level of similarity with them.You can argue that, well, that doesn't prove they were in error, but the fact the author of the textbook admits they were in error since they were based on faulty drawings, is proof enough of that.if you want to tell them they were wrong to admit to the error, and wrong to correct the error, that's your business, but it's silly for you to keep defending the indefensible.This message has been edited by randman, 06-23-2005 03:28 PM

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

Well, try looking at it from my perspective. Every textbook I saw back in the 80s used fraudulent drawings. This guy admits in a tone of genuine surprise that they too had based their drawings on Haeckel's fraud. They felt it was significant enough to change their textbook to make it more accurate. They showed no awareness that the drawings were frauds, and showed surprise that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent, but offered the rationale that nearly all textbooks were taken in.My experience is that nearly all textbooks exhibited these fraudulent drawings, and personally, I would not consider any of Haeckel's drawings accurate.It's interesting that the same term "recapitulation" is used to describe Haeckel's discredited theory and current theory.If you were to take a step back, and just look at this from a more skeptical view, and assess why these drawings were used, whether to base new drawings on or to illustrate the embryonic evidence, I cannot see how you would not agree that this is a massive, pervasive fraud perpetuated on the public.Keep in mind totally false assertions often went with these drawings such as the claims of human gill slits.I think you underestimate the genuine reaction of an open-minded person to learning of this fraud. For me personally, it was a major deal which helped me begin to question evolutionary theory, and the more I subject evolutionist statements to critical analysis, I tend to see more and more the whole community more characterized, as a whole, with ideological indoctrination than real education.

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.

My experience is nearly every piece of evidence evolutionists use to teach evolution, and certainly nearly every major piece I was taught, is fraudulent and largely consists of overstatements.I am sorry, but I am a little sensitive to propaganda, and don't believe it makes for good education. I realize you evolutionists are different and see no problem with consistent, wild overstatements, and it's hard for you to see what the fuss is about.That's too bad, imo.But irregardless, micro-evolution does not equal universal common descent and macro-evolution. There is no good evidence for abiogenesis except wishing it were so. There is no highly conserved stage in embryonic development. The predictions of evolutionary theory totally failed in that regard, and yet evolutionists continued to use deceptive means to maintain the illusion of what Darwin once called the strongest evidence for evolution.The fossil record does not document evolution, and in fact shows nearly no actual transitions. Evolutionists complain about how people are making too big a deal out of the gaps, but honestly, if universal common descent were true, you would expect there not to be such gaps, and if one accepts there are gaps, one should admit the fossil evidence is at best inconclusive.I have never seen evolutionists adequately explained how wings could develop for instance. The idea that some animals began flapping their appendages and grew wings is wholly unsatisfactory and not of scientific nature at all.Lemme think, oh yeah, humans do not have gill slits as evolutionists falsely maintained.Macroevolution is not observed. Mutations, and I admit I am a little weak here, do not seem to provide as much evidence as is needed since new whole information needs to arise.The ape-human transition all along, imo, has been characterized by hoaxes and overstatements.The so-called vestigal organs tend to turn out to be functional after all.We cannot really test evolution since macro-evolution is not observed.But most tellingly, evolution was accepted by scientists often based on fraudulent evidence, and yet as frauds are exposed, there never seems to be any questioning of the theory. It seems more a theory first to fit the facts into, which colors one's perception of the facts, rather than facts emerging to form a theory.Personally, I think universal common descent could still be true, but it true, I think it is so implausible given what we know of the natural world, that it alone would be very strong evidence for ID, or Creator.My approach is to try to look objectively at each piece of evidence and not try to fit it into a whole theory.I believe most evolutionists accept the theory uncritically, and thus never really look into the evidence for themselves.

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.

The rest of your post is what is technically called "PRATTS".Points Refuted A Thousand Times. See, e.g., An Index to Creationist Claims.Your claim to have examined the evidence and reached an objective conclusion is ludicrously false.

Part of that laundry list was the fraudulent use of Haeckel's drawings, something I was made aware of in the 80s, but you guys kept using them.On the conserved stage, I see you are backing off, but that was a prediction of evolutionists and it failed, bigtime. It was not the biogenetic law, but the whole current recapitulation theory as well.Just wrong!But it is true that there is no fact that can disprove Darwinism. It is totally unfalsifiable.Had to laugh about your claim that "every fossil is transitional" which is true from a Darwinist perspective, but that doesn't mean they actually show one kind of creature evolve into a whole different type of being. No, the fossil record does not record the gradual changes predicted by Darwinism. Imo, it is well-nigh proof against Darwinism, and I have heard the snapshot arguments ad naeseum, but they are not convincing. They may well indicate an on-going creative process, but Darwinism predicted fossils showing these major steps in evolution, step by step, but there are not just gaps missing but whole highways.I really don't have time for the rest of your post, but just consider, your side used fraudalent drawings for 130 years and kept telling critics the same old unconvincing things on how good your explanations were.I don't buy them, and mainly because I don't buy the bogus use of evidence by evolutionists.In fact, I believe that had not creationists made such a big stink for a long time on Haeckel's drawings, evolutionists would still be using them today (and maybe still are) and insisting that gill slits are in human embryos, something one evolutionist did insist on in this thread.

I doubt many of us guys were 'using them' in the 80s. It has been discussed for several pages now, but I haven't seen anyone say what specifically is wrong with the images used in text books. Are the eyes too big in one stage? Does it show a dramatically different spine development in one organism? What is drastically in error in the diagrams that needs changing? Darwinism was falsified when we discovered DNA instead of gemmules. However, moving on, if the fact was that DNA did not mutate that would not falsify The Theory of Evolution? What if a human being ten rats, a boat, three eagles and an oak tree were found in 4 billion year old strata and was radio dating agreed... would that not be a sever blow to the theory?It might be true that no fact can falsify evolution - the only time when that would be a logically true statement is if evolution were true.

I doubt you'll get an answer to (2) ... that has been one of my points that randman keeps dancing around trying to move the goalposts, but not answeringThere is also (3) - not all Haeckel's drawings were {fudged\faked}, so when we talk about his drawings being used the question is whether the {bad} drawings are used or whether the {good} drawings are used.So far I have seen reference to specific drawings (eg the dog embyo) being faked, but the pictures I have seen that are used do not have these specific drawings in them.If the drawings used are all {good} drawings then there is no perpetuated fraud.I have yet to see a descriptive list of every drawing error that can be used to make that determination.So far it seems like "Haeckel faked some drawings, therefore all Haeckels drawings are bad, and any use of any of his drawings is bad" -- a logical fallacyEnjoy the lurking.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

My Textbook: Freeman and Herron, 2001: "Evolutionary Analysis, 2nd Ed."has none of Haeckel's drawings, no images of peppered moths either. It does have pictures of turtle, chicken, and human embryos in a brief section about relatedness of species.Luckily I was not duped by those unscrupulous science textbook publishers.

---

Why do men have nipples?

That's because it's the 2001 edition.Duh.After 130 years, evolutionists finally began, after intense criticism and growing suspicion of their methods, only then did they remove the fraud.Yippee!