Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

But it wasn't unchecked. It was denounced over and over again, but evolutionists just kept refusing to look at the facts, and so the issue is why?My contention is there is indeed an active hand of self-delusion or brainwashing by the evolutionist community within itself that causes it not to view data and evidence properly, which makes even the consideration of a fraud such as Haeckel's difficult.Basically, evolutionists refuse to listen to their critics and try to discredit them so that when someone who is a critic points to an obvious flaw, evolutionists refuse to accept it.That's not science, imo.The following is evidence for what I am talking about. Opponents of the claim should not have to prove it is a false claim before evolutionists use the claim as evidence. No, evolutionists should prove the claim prior to claiming it is an observed fact. In typical fashion for evolutionists, their thinking is backward. The claim precedes the evidence and yet the unobserved claim is taught as an observable fact, and this is what is distressing, imo, about what I call evolutionism.Evolutionists should not make claims of observable "facts" prior to those facts being observed. It's fine to make "predictions" based on theory, but evolutionists presented as an observed fact what should have been characterized as a prediction of evolutionary theory and did so in support of evolution, and then, as your post suggests, evolutionists think it is reasonable to continue with this unproven assertion until someone proves otherwise, and even then to challenge that.That's backwards of how it should be, and that explains why it was so difficult to get evolutionists to abandon the use of faked evidence in the case of Haeckel's drawings. basically, evolutionists claim to follow solid scientific procedure, but do not since they accept as facts things which are not by nature facts, but unproven predictions, and dogmatically assert that this evidence is "overwhelming" evidence for, or some such.It's bogus thinking.Evolutionists should stick with actual data as evidence and not overstatements and predictions that have not been observed.For example, you note: Then why did evolutionists teach the phylotypic stage, complete with human fish gill claims, during this period it was out of favour?That proves my point. There was deliberate reliance on unproven data, and claims made with abject dogmatism that the data was correct along with severely derogatory comments towards those that suggest otherwise.You guys call that science?I call it pseudo-religion at worst,and ideological indoctrination at best. Not in this case, even junior high kids could see the drawings as fraudulent, if shown what critics had to say about the evidence. No, that is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. I see an unfortunate situation. I do not claim deliberate deception necessarily, but just like other false "religions", evolutionism relies on a method of indoctrination that clouds the mind and robs it of objective perception.Btw, I will edit to add a link showing where I detailed creationists already on this thread bashing the use of Haeckel's drawings for decades. It's not like Richardson brought up so much new. It's just that evolutionists have so demonized their critics that they refuse to listen to their criticism, despite that criticism being correct.This message has been edited by randman, 06-30-2005 05:52 PM

Which is what I keep asking you to show me. Show me what was said in a school text book in 1930, and show me how that was denounced. Then show me a school text book in 1940 and either show how nothing has changed since the criticism, or what further criticism was levelled at the modified curriculum.Who was this denouncement made by? In what medium? To whom? What was the response? I need names, titles, dates and places. Not at all, the claim was made from the limited data that was present. As I said to you, there was work in the literature on the morphological side of things. Things seemed to be fine, and there was a seeming lack of comparative embryologists for a long time since it fell out of favour (I assume to the new science of genetics and studying DNA).As far as anyone was concerned, the phylotypic stage was observed, and was documented. When comparative embryology came back in scientific vogue the 19th Century definitions were found to be somewhat lacking and work began on developing a comprehensive definition. Richardson noted that under at least one definition of phloytypic period actual results ran contrary to the prediction. Work continued and some even more detailed evidence surfaced that the phylotypic stage might be right after all.Its just a case of crude biological science being overtaken by more modern and formal science. If there isn't much research spent on the Laws of Thermodynamics, should we stop teaching them until research resumes? Research was out favour in comparative biology, so the conclusions that were drawn when it was last investigated stuck. Why bother reinventing the wheel? The research grants were undoubtedly going to the geneticists rather than the comparative embryologists...because there wasn't anything left in the latter field, or so it appeared.I'm sure a creationist managed to do a comprehensive work on comparative embryology in order to fully discredit it, right? Excellent, I await the link patiently.

The more I follow this thread the more I really do think the topic is a bit ridiculous. Except for this claim that it was creationists who debunked Haeckels drawings really this is a non issue.So there was an incorrect idea that was considered right for a period of time. So what? Scientists used to think that the space outside the earth was filled with ether. Scientists used to think that Newtonian laws of motion held true in all instances. Scientists used to think a lot of things that get overturned as time goes by. But just like every other tentative conclusion that science holds today, it still gets taught even if it may be overturned at a future date.There is an issue in this case of an idea that had already received criticism being propagated but the claims of some posters on this issue concerning conspiracy, brainwashing, indoctrination have only thus far been hard to support accusations. What needs to be shown is malicious intent in disseminating wrong information that is known to be wrong for the purposes of ideologue.Where this fails is the motive. Even if it can be down that somehow this was some kind of grand propagation of disinformation, the benefits of doing such are not very great. The ToE does not stand or fall based on the results of embryology. Embryology is one biological component affected by evolution. Evolution is supported by hordes of other sub-fields of biology including embryology that does not espouse recapitulation.Speaking as if it was the design of the evolutionist to propagate this information to support their dubious theory is simply rhetoric which is the only way to belittle the theory when no facts are available to do so on scientific terms. The truth of the matter is that scientific creationism has no scientific legs to stand on and therefore must resort to attacking scientific theories like the ToE, the Big Bang, etc on political and philosophical grounds. The whole basis of this argument is that there was a problem with Embryology related to Haeckels drawings thus all the rest of the ToE must answer to this crisis. This is ridiculous on the face of it yet is the one of the only fragile straws that creation science has to grasp upon.People like our Kent Hovinds continually berate this issue because their method of persuasion has nothing to do with presenting the actual facts. They are spin doctors whose goal is the propagation of their OWN brand of misinformation for the purposes of religion, greed, or both. To actually face the ToE on the grounds for which it is ACTUALLY supported is pure futility for these people because they either know it is unassailable by their methods of inquiry or simply do not care to invest the effort to pursue the issue legitimately.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Modulous, first off, it would help if you read the thread since I have already done this, but here it goes.First, this is nothing new. None of these arguments are new at all. Creationists have denounced the way evolutionists used embryonic evidence for decades. Science in Christian PerspectiveNote the comments of "standard topics" and "evidences from....embryology." In the 40s and 50s, the gill slit claims as well phylotypic stage were common, standard claims, and the arguments against them common and standard as well.Note as an aside, that the prominent creationist Dewar accepts speciation, but not macroevolution. Science in Christian PerspectiveThe following link asserts that the claims of evolutionists of a phylotypic stage go all the way back to van Baer, and makes the following note. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichSo the basis of developmental evolutionary biology in this area was asserted and never verfied by evolutionists until very recently, and found lacking, despite creationists knowing and stating the claim was false.Here's more from 1995. Reflections on the Emperor’s New Clothes | Answers in Genesis Note the following references of creationist books denouncing this claim in 1911, 1931, 1969, 1986. Developing Deception | Answers in Genesis In my own experience, back in the 80s, I attended a lecture by a zoologist who was also a tenured professor at NC State, although the lecture was at a different university, and he pointed out that evolutionists were using fraudulent evidence in this area, and it was typical creationist fare to denounce evolutionists' use of faked drawings and false embryonic claims.I did not refer to some of the original critics in the 1800s, as it was hard to tell who was a creationist and who were evolutionist, and whether they remained that way, but there was considerable opposition among biologists to Darwin so it is likely that some of the critics were probably creationists.However, I did find that one of the earliest critics of recapitulation was, in fact, Karl van Baer, who was actually a creationist according to many and very critical of Darwin's theory. : Karl Ernst von Baer - WikipediaIt's interesting that evolutionists refer to Baer's laws or hypothesis as fundamental evidence for evolution, but Baer himself apparently may not have agreed.Please note the wikapedia says Baer was an evolutionist, but other sources state he was a creationist. It's clear he was very critical of Darwinism. Maybe someone can clear this up, as far as where he stood.Edit to add. The wikapedia is wrong. Van Baer was indeed a creationist. Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologeticsSo the earliest critic of using embryonic evidence for evolution was, in fact, van Baer, perhaps the father of embryology. Darwin used his evidence, but van Baer considered it a misuse, sort of how creationists use facts put forth by evolutionists all the time, and the evolutionists claim they are taking the fact out of context. So Darwin did the same, and the shoe was on the other foot.I cannot fault the use of empirical observations in a different way as a general principle, but that does not make Darwin correct.This message has been edited by randman, 07-01-2005 01:00 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-01-2005 01:11 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-01-2005 01:13 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-01-2005 01:15 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-01-2005 01:25 PM

Would you be shocked to learn that this had not only ocurred to me, but that I even went ahead and did it? Doesn't discuss the diagrams used in schools. I have indeed made reference to this in a previous post. It talks about the evidence regarding the phylotypic stage. Nothing to do with Haeckel's drawings being used in school. Refers once again to Haeckel's drawings in general and not the drawings that are (or hopefully were) being used in schools.And so on. I am in agreement with you that some of Haeckel's drawings were known to be fraudulent (such as 'copy/pasting' certain embryos), and I am in agreement that this has been known since Haeckel's time.What I am asking for is to know what was said to textbook makers about the drawings they used throughout, and the reaction to that. Were the creationists you mentioned making detailed reports like Richardson?I want an answer to the question "Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school". I know what your opinion is, if you want to show me that it has any merit then you'll need to show me the evidence for it.This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 01-July-2005 08:36 PM

You're just moving the goalposts, Modulous. I've given you plenty if information. No one individual here can take a year or 2 to gather all of the textbooks, go over each one, go over every piece of historical documentation, etc,...Suffice to say, if you bother to read the links and various studies, is that Haeckel's drawings were so far off the mark in their entirety that using them to base any drawings off of is a serious error.Just look at the drawings "based on them." They are basically Haeckel's drawings with small modifications. They are entirely inaccurate which is why textbooks dropped them.What you are doing though is par for the course. Creationists for over 130 years slammed the false claims and false use of data in this area, but evolutionists were loathe to give it up and admit error, and even today, as your post indicates, are very reticient about admitting to the error completely.It's not just Haeckel's drawings but the accompanying false claims of:human gill slits
highly conserved stages of evolution
yolk sacs being evidence of common descent
etc, etc,.....The whole package has just been wrong in it's entirety and based on false claims, hoaxes, and non-observed unproven assertions.If you are going to be honest, you would admit the evidence I have posted indicates that.if you want more evidence, I would just say that it is incumbent upon evolutionists to prove their claims first, not demand others provide evidence against their claims.Show me where there has ever been a proper use of Haeckel's drawings in textbooks, ever?I have shown you where textbook authors claimed the widespread use of Haeckel's drawings, whether exact or to base drawings off of, was considered a serious error.Can you produce any evidence to the contrary?

Modulous, have you genuinely read the links? It doesn't seem like you have despite your claim. If so, did you not notice the following: Developing Deception | Answers in Genesis Just look at the picks in the famous tailbud stage on the following link. I don't know how to post these pics, but the differences are just so different than every drawing of Haeckel, except maybe the sea lamprey, as to prove his drawings are completely devoid of accuracy in their entirety, not even a shred of actual truth to his depictions and claims at all.I challenge you to look at the pics in the link below, and Haeckel's drawings and tell me where Haeckel's depictions have any accuracy at all. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis

Yes, that would be wonderful wouldn't it? However, the goalposts have not been moved. To 'score' your 'goal' you have to show that the use of Haeckel's diagrams was something more than a mistake. I'm asking you to show that Richardson's demonstration about just how inacurate these pictures were was something that had already been covered by Creationists. You made a claim, I'm asking for you to show it. You set the goal posts, if you want the goal, you need to shoot. Of course not, but you wouldn't make a claim based on no evidence would you? So someone has already done this, right? Agreed. Now, where have creationists shown the exact magnitude of these inaccuracies rather than just saying that Haeckel committed fraud? I'll try to say this clearly. An error was made. An error was made. It is not good that an error was made. You are also on par for creationism, tarring errors as proof that evolutionists are trying to use any data to support their theory - even data that is known to be false.Since creationists have been saying this for sooooo long, why didn't they do the leg work that Richardson did and get it peer reviewed? They would have gained a lot of credibility for it too. Well, I would certainly admit that Haeckel's drawings were in error, but I don't see any major problems with the gill slits other than the unfortunate name. The highly conserved stages of embryonic development, as I have previously said, the work on this is still being completed - an unambigious answer is unavailable. Earlier data seemed to indicate it, but more sophisticated methods have questioned it. As for the yolk sacs, I don't think that is any of the things you have said. I've not read a lot regarding it other than what has been said here.So, no, it is not based on false claims. The claims were made by Baer, and I have already shown a paper to you that shows he might have been right. Some claims were based on a hoax perpetrated by Haeckel. The claims of phylotypic stages were not unobserved, they were observed. The definitions of what a phylotypic stage has become a stricter set of definitions, some of which have been falsified. It seems the claim was that Haeckel's diagrams' use in school was indicicative of active fraud by evolutionists or a mind set of self-delusion and brain washing. You made the claim. If I have made a claim, then you may ask me to back it up. If I cannot, I will admit as much. I cannot show you this, but I can imagine scenarios. Mostly surrounding the history of comparative embryology. Not including Haeckel's diagrams in such a discussion would be crazy, including them would be proper. I assume that a history of comparative embryology has been discussed in text books. And I have agreed. The question isn't "Was Haeckel's drawings being taught in schools an error?" the question is "Why...?". You have a theory as to why, I'm asking you to back your claims up. If you can't do it, that's fine - but if you're asking me to believe you on no evidence, you can understand why I might be skeptical.This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 01-July-2005 10:31 PM

Modulous, I have fully backed up my claims. Just admit it.1. The drawings and claims were in error.2. Evolutionists fell for the error and perpetuated the errors despite numerous books, articles, speeches, web-sites, etc,...by creationists that stated the drawings and claims were in error, as I have referenced here. Do you deny this?3. Proving motive is hard to do, but what is proven is evolutionists had good reason to suspect the error because critics repeatedly told them about the error, and they had never checked the error themselves, or if they did, they ignored it.This goes to the heart of the discussion. I should not have to prove anything more considering I am the only one offering evidence. The fact evolutionists used such a fraud for over 130 years alone is indicative of a major systemic error within the evolutionist community. This is not a mere mistake, but a fundamentally fraudulent claim held onto by evolutionists despite massive evidence of fraud. You should have to show a valid reason why evolutionists ignored critics and kept insisting on using a fraud. I have given enough data to show that the claim of a mere mistake is fraudulent. There has to be a valid reason for continuing to use faked evidence.What is that reason?Can you ever show where evolutionists used these drawings correctly in textbooks?Why did they ignore decades of people telling them about the fraud?4. In light of the above points, if you want to argue that I have not proven self-delusion, that is fine, but I see only one other valid alternative, and that is purposeful deceit or a combination of both. Considering the level of criticism showing Haeckel's drawings to be fraudulent, the claim of an "honest mistake" is not logical.There were repeated calls to correct this abuse and fraud, and only after 1997 when an evolutionist joined in the call did evolutionists begin to correct the problem, and even then, sometimes half-heartedly.If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend this is a mere honest mistake, that's your business, but there is no good reason to accept such a claim in light of the fact creationists have continually, such as in debates, books, articles, etc,...shown that the drawings were fraudulent.I have provided plenty of evidence to debunk the mere honest mistake claim by you.On the other hand, you have offered no evidence to back up your claim of a mere honest mistake.Why is that?Why are you asking for more evidence, but offer no evidence to back up your claims?This message has been edited by randman, 07-01-2005 08:08 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 07-01-2005 08:09 PM

Yes you have backed up that the drawings were in error. I don't know what claims you refer to. Yes, I deny this. That is what I have been trying to extract from you. There are two principle problems with Haeckel's drawings. Their accuracy and possible 'copy/pasting'. As far as I am aware the copy/pasted embryos are not the ones used in school text books. As far as I know Haeckel openly admitted that the diagrams weren't accurate, and they were not meant to be: You have not yet referenced anything which shows that the diagrams were as inaccurate as Richardson's paper suggests decades before Richardson. So show me where they did this, what was said, to whom and when. I'm willing to accept it, and if we want to uncover the "Why", we need to get past this stage. You're the only one making a claim. I said it before I will say it again. You want me back something up? Then tell me what it is, and I will either do so or admit that I cannot. I think you might be exagerating things wildly out of control here. The fact that biology textbook makers used such erroneous data for such a long time is indicitave of a fundamental problem with textbook makers - that is to say, that they generally don't do their own science work and simply rely on the work of previous scientists.This goes further, scientists are human. They only research things that interest them in some way and which they are able to get funding to research. Scientists didn't 'check their work' because the work had been done, been criticized and still seemed to stand. It was assumed to be fine and their didn't need to be any more work done on it.The scientific community is an antagonistically driven one. Counter research is done by opponents to a research conclusion. I've asked this question a couple of times now, without an answer, and I think it's important. Since creation scientists exist, and since they were the opponents to the conclusions drawn by 19th Century comparitive embryologists, why did none of them do the actual scientific work to counter the claim? Why did they just write books, take part in debates and later, write web-sites which repeated the claim which was already known? Why did they basically sit on their thumbs and wait for a real scientists to do the hard work for them? Why did they wait for the comparitive embryology to come 'back into fashion' and then wait for an opponent of some of the claims to come along and do some actual work? You have asked the question before, I answered it. If you have specific problem with my answer, address it. I am not sticking my head in the sand. I am trying to get answers from you to get to the bottom of this mystery. You just keep repeating your theory as to the why, which I already know. Whether or not Haeckel committed fraud is not in debate here, it is whether or not the fraud that was committed made it into the textbooks, why, and why did it stay there if it did.To quote Richardson again:

quote:

---

We are not the first to question the drawings. Haeckel's past accusers included His (Leipzig University), Rutimeyer (Basel University), and Brass (leader of the Keplerbund group of Protestant scientists). However, these critics did not give persuasive evidence in support of their arguments. We therefore show here a more accurate representation of vertebrate embryos at three arbitrary stages, including the approximate stage which Haeckel showed to be identical.

​

"Haeckel, embryos, and evolution," Science 280 (1998): 983-984

---

Here Richardson is confirming what I have been saying. Those who have previously criticized Haeckel's drawings did so without persuasive evidence. Richardson might be wrong, or might have missed out some important critics. That's fine, let's look at the evidence shall we?

oh? If drawings are based on Haeckel's drawings with corrections based on current knowledge, would they be wrong? Using the word for what it means doesn't make the word wrong. Again, common descent has nothing to do with Haeckel's theory, or phylotypic stage. Just having common ancestors. This is a strawman argument because evolution is not based on these concepts. Or you are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. And using that for an argument from incredulity.As noted none of the textbooks teach Haeckel's theory as valid, but the opposite.Enjoy

---

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

That was the gist of the post, but it also talked about when changes occur in embryonic development based on evolutionary concepts of mutation and selection, and not being tied to any timetable. Rather the nature of {when developments show changes} would give an appearance of a trend that need not exist at all. There are any number of specific species where the speciation event has occurred. In each one of them we know that {zygote\blastocyct\embryo\fetus} development was the same at one point (before speciation) and that it is now different, possibly in several places.That is all that is needed for evolution: change in species over time.You can also compare these pictures:

Can you see a difference? Is that due to different stages of development or to different species?

---

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

Modulous, the following claim makes me dounbt your sincerety and honesty. It is incredulous that you could have read the same links and posts and still make this claim.Is Van Baer not a "real scientist"? How about Haeckel's colleagues that tried him for fraud at the university?How about Deware?In fact, if we are to compare the credentials of the men who blasted Haeckel with the men that defended him, I would wager the "real scientists" were the creationists, and the phonies evolutionists, but regardless, if you want to persist in disbelief after clear evidence has been shown to you, that's your business. The writings, books, articles, etc,...that were published, that I referenced, clearly contrary to your or Richardson's claims, did in fact specify the nature of the fraud.Perhaps Richardson uncovered more frauds that were not caught earlier, but Van Baer's comments and denunciation of the idea alone were sufficient to show the fraud, and Van Baer was a creationist.I suggest you google Van Baer to determine if he was a "real scientist."LOL

Well, at least we have both reason to doubt one another. You led me to believe that the phlotypic stage had been abandoned by science, when it clearly hasn't. How about, we don't play any games here, and we assume that both of us are actually genuine and are honestly trying to come to some sort of concensus regarding why these drawings were in schools. I don't like having my integrity questioned, and I imagine neither do you, and its not particularly conducive to the debate, nor is it relevant. So let's not do it, OK? OK, two things here.1. Van Baer is a real scientist. Never questioned it. Did he do the kind of research I was talking about? Show me the way. All I see is that Van Baer criticized the recapitulation theory. That's not in question here.2. What evidence of this 'trial' is there? To quote Richardson (again):

quote:

---

I am concerned to find that I may have helped perpetuate a Creationist myth The claim that Ernst Haeckel was convicted of fraud was made in The Times. I relied on that statement in a subsequent publication without seeking a primary source -- clearly a mistake on my part. Richardson, M. K. (1998) Haeckel's Embryos, Continued, Science 281:1289

---

and another excerpt:

quote:

---

To some of them [anti-Darwinists] every sort of vilifying argument [against Haeckel] was welcome. This seems to still be true today, as is evidence from recent claims in the British press that Haeckel had been convicted by his university of alleged fraud. On being asked to disclose their sources, one of the respective authors kindly referred us to a book agitating against the origin of man from other primates (which in turn gave no relevant reference), while the other did not answer our queries. Because, to our knowledge, no respectable historical source mentions this conviction of Haeckel, we conclude that the claim for it must be based on hearsay, not fact. Sander, Klaus & Bender, Roland (1998) Science 281:349

---

Maybe this trial happened, I don't know, but there does seem some doubt. Then again this is irrelevant. I have said over and over and over again...the fraud is not under debate, the accuracy of the pictures that made into textbooks is. The fraud trial, if it did happen, certainly didn't cover this. What about him? All you have reference from him was a sarcastic book he co-wrote in which he criticized the science of embryology. The only evidence you have shown me is that some sort of fraud was committed by Haeckel. That isn't in question, I don't disbelieve it. It seems we are getting somewhere. Perhaps I missed this. So let's take this one step at a time. Name one source and tell me how they specifically described the nature of the fraud. I'm not deliberately not reading your sources, but in order to keep thnigs simple, let's start with one source. I want to get to the bottom of this, I hope together we can do it. You have referenced a lot of things on this thread (which is great), so let's focus on one of them for the moment, see if we can't see eye to eye on this issue. I'm sure you've read Richardson's papers. It isn't so much the fraud, as the the simplifications and the ommission of important differences that Richardson wrote of in his 1997 paper. What did Van Baer say? What comments did he make, to whom did he make them? I suggest you check your tone - this is the kind of commentary that can degrade a civilized debate. If you want to start lowering the standard of our otherwise intelligent discussion with this, then I will not be party to it.

I did google "Van Baer creationist" and could find no link that showed he was a creationist, rather than a scientist who may (or may not) have been a christian, and just being a christian is not being a creationist. If you have other information that he was a creationist then please present it. Otherwise I will just be forced to assume that you are just assuming this to be so due to history.I also found:
Error Which he clarifies further down with: Almost exactly my argument earlier.

---

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