Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haeckels' Drawings Part II
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 91 of 94 (261196)
11-19-2005 2:05 AM


Modulous
I am not sure we can come to a conclusion because you do not accept the same historical facts, but I will give a little summary here.
examples of where creationists and others pointed out Haeckel's drawings were forgeries (off of memory so the exact dates may be off)
1. Ian Taylor's book in the 80s.
2. Presentations by creationists on college campuses in the 80s, one of which I was in the audience.
3. Internet articles in the 90s by creationist organizations such as AIG.
4. Articles by creationists in the 70s.
5. Douglas Dewar, a prominent creationist in Britain, in the 40s and 50s.
6. Creationist book in the 30s.
7. Book around 1911.
8. by several professors right after Haeckel came out with his claims, in the 1800s
Since not everything is on the internet, it's hard to drudge up but so much documentation, but I think a reasonable person would agree that the different times I cited all of the instances above, that there was ample reason to suspect Haeckel's drawings as fraudulent, but despite creationists harping on that, and I might add providing a ton of actual specific data showing how they were erroneous and forgeries, they kept being used by evolutionists in textbooks.
Finally, in 1998-99, an evolutionist did a study and came out admitting that Haeckel's drawings were wrong, and some book publishers admitted they were wrong to keep using them, or colored versions of them.
Now, you believe this was just a reasonably honest mistake. I don't. I think it is symptomatic of much deeper problem. I think the only reason the drawings were discontinued is because the internet made it easier for creationists to point out to ever larger groups of people the fraudulent nature of the drawings.
Why did evos not correct this earlier? We've gone over this ad nauseum. At this stage I think if you just accepted there is some sort of basic flaw for allowing such a forgery for well over 100 years to be taught to students as factual, we might could call it progress made and close the discussion.
For me, I think evolutionists tend to jump on anything that helps make their case believable, and once the myth of some false data is accepted, it is extremely difficult to get evos to back off of.
Take Haeckel's theory. It was very successful early on convincing people even though it was also exposed as fraudulent very early on. But I think it must be because it was so successful, it kept being used.
Now, after his theory was rejected, it is interesting that the same lingo was kept, and for a long time it was taught (it was taught as late in the 50s to my Dad in college, and he went on to become a surgeon) that ontology recapitulates phylogeny. That's the exact language Haeckel used to describe his theory.
Now, what should we make of this? I think a reasonable conclusion is that evos thought it was a good slogan and kept it for propaganda reasons. They adjusted the claims, watered them down, and moved to insist, falsely I might add, that even though "adult forms" did not recapitulate that there was single phylotypic stage.
Did they have evidence for this stage?
No, and the excuses today was that it was an error because it wasn't popular field. But that doesn't work.
So really, for over 100 years, evos taught there was this observed fact, which they made up, that was evidence for evolution, and now once it is finally exposes, there appears to be no acknowledgement or shame about that, nor even questioning how a purported science field could ignore basic facts and present things as facts to every student in the nation, over and over again, without ever really verifying those facts.
It illustrates a fundamental, inherited flaw within the way evolution is taught, believed, and the whole mindset.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-19-2005 02:07 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2005 9:05 AM randman has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 92 of 94 (261237)
11-19-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by randman
11-19-2005 2:05 AM


randman
Since not everything is on the internet, it's hard to drudge up but so much documentation, but I think a reasonable person would agree that the different times I cited all of the instances above, that there was ample reason to suspect Haeckel's drawings as fraudulent, but despite creationists harping on that, and I might add providing a ton of actual specific data showing how they were erroneous and forgeries, they kept being used by evolutionists in textbooks.
I've already agreed that creationists have asserted, in popular press, that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent. I'd debate some of the things you listed could count for this, as I have done before, but its irrelevant for the moment.
I haven't seen any actual specific data yet.
You are still conflating evolutionists and text book writers.
Finally, in 1998-99, an evolutionist did a study and came out admitting that Haeckel's drawings were wrong, and some book publishers admitted they were wrong to keep using them, or colored versions of them.
Wasn't it 1997? I don't think it matters, but this isn't under a massive amount of debate.
Now, you believe this was just a reasonably honest mistake. I don't.
No, I think it is indicative of a massive flaw in the science education text book compilation procedure. Gould agreed with me.
I think it is symptomatic of much deeper problem
I agree.
I think the only reason the drawings were discontinued is because the internet made it easier for creationists to point out to ever larger groups of people the fraudulent nature of the drawings.
That's a nice opinion. Unfortunately it has no support. Indeed, given that the paper was 1997, when the internet was still a small place, it seems to contradict that scenario.
Why did evos not correct this earlier?
Do you mean 'why did text book compilers not correct this earlier?' if not then the answer to the question is another question "Why did creos not correct this earlier?"
We've gone over this ad nauseum. At this stage I think if you just accepted there is some sort of basic flaw for allowing such a forgery for well over 100 years to be taught to students as factual, we might could call it progress made and close the discussion.
Yes, the flaw and those to blame are, as Gould put it, with the text book compilers, which are notorious for immortalizing incorrect information through the process of copying from earlier works. You have yet to succesfully show that all people that accept evolution are at fault for this scenario.
If you want to close the discussion, I think I should repeat Gould's statement, which is quite a good conclusion:
quote:
Haeckel's drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology. I do not know how the transfer occurred in this particular case, but the general (and highly troubling) principles can be easily identified. Authors of textbooks cannot be experts in all subdisciplines of their subject. They should be more careful, and they should rely more on primary literature and the testimony of expert colleagues, but shortcuts tempt us all, particularly in the midst of elaborate projects under tight deadlines.
Source
For me, I think evolutionists tend to jump on anything that helps make their case believable, and once the myth of some false data is accepted, it is extremely difficult to get evos to back off of.
And likewise for creos, only they often cling to ideas that never had merit in the first place, even after being shown why their ideas are wrong. But that's just opinion and is irrelevant.
Take Haeckel's theory. It was very successful early on convincing people even though it was also exposed as fraudulent very early on. But I think it must be because it was so successful, it kept being used.
By text book compilers at the high school level. It didn't keep being used by evolutionary scientists.
Now, after his theory was rejected, it is interesting that the same lingo was kept, and for a long time it was taught (it was taught as late in the 50s to my Dad in college, and he went on to become a surgeon) that ontology recapitulates phylogeny. That's the exact language Haeckel used to describe his theory.
Once again, this seems to be a text book issue, not evolutionary science. I am in agreement with you that high school text books are a quagmire of problems.
Now, what should we make of this? I think a reasonable conclusion is that evos thought it was a good slogan and kept it for propaganda reasons.
Why? It was only the text books that used this 'slogan'. Evolutionary scientists didn't, unless you can show they did. If you do, I will agree that said scientist was wrong. Why the sinister cloak and dagger conspiracy theories? Why not the mundane, normal reason, that there is a fundamental problem with the high school text book compilation culture?
They adjusted the claims, watered them down, and moved to insist, falsely I might add, that even though "adult forms" did not recapitulate that there was single phylotypic stage.
There did appear to be a single phylotypic stage. There is strong reason to accept that. It might be wrong, it might be right. This is a matter of debate within science, and your asserting that the question has been answered is a little premature.
Did they have evidence for this stage?
Yes, I even linked you to a paper that showed this stage, demonstrating the controversy.
So really, for over 100 years, evos taught there was this observed fact
'evos' don't teach. Teachers teach. Some teachers are 'evos', most teachers just teach what the curriculum tells them to and what is in their text books.
and now once it is finally exposes, there appears to be no acknowledgement or shame about that
I refer you to the publisher you have cited as apologizing and changing their pictures. I point you to Gould. I point you to me.
nor even questioning how a purported science field could ignore basic facts
The field didn't ignore the facts. How you continue to conflate education of a field with the actual field amazes me.
present things as facts to every student in the nation, over and over again, without ever really verifying those facts.
As Gould said, this is a big problem, verification of text book material is appauling, and there should be some way to encourage the publishers to have more responsibility for this.
It illustrates a fundamental, inherited flaw within the way evolution is taught, believed, and the whole mindset.
It illustrates the way that text books are compiled. Anything else is a leap of your making that you have failed to provide the steps you took.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 11-19-2005 2:05 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by NosyNed, posted 11-19-2005 9:56 AM Modulous has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 93 of 94 (261240)
11-19-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Modulous
11-19-2005 9:05 AM


Perhaps the important comment by Gould
From your source:
quote:
For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within.
It was never a big issue, it was no issue at all after 1910.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2005 9:05 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 94 of 94 (261241)
11-19-2005 10:16 AM


2 things
1) Randma, can you prove creationists disproved haeckle? I belive other scientists did.
2) Not ALL text books feature these drawings. And I doubt ANY do today.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024