Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

quote:

---

Oh and the teacher that used Haeckel's drawings as evidence of evolution was fresh out of teacher's college. I know she knows that Haeckel's drawings were false which leaves me to wonder why she would use fradulent material to teach evolution.

---

As others have mentioned, if this is indeed the case, you should set up a time to speak with your teacher. Unfortunately, science teachers are in high demand; many are under-qualified and don't really possess the necessary understanding of the material they teach. You'd be doing both creationists and evolutionists a favor if you set the record straight.And maybe I missed it, but did you post the name of your textbook previously? Would appreciate knowing which one it is.

quote:

---

I felt I gave a satisfactory answer to his response but then he tries to talk to me as a superior instead of an equal

---

It's fun to read the thread again. You'll find the following in Message 20 from our sensitive friend 7 ...

quote:

---

Let me put it in words you understand:

---

Now, who was trying to make who sound stupid? Who had a cocky attitude?Seems like 7 is a prime (groan!) example of potist anti-kettlism.

So, did you decide to reject modern science due to your careful examination of the data or because you feel that in order to be a good Christian you must do so?Secondly, why do you consider the scriptures to be science?

Puns kill Mr P.....

That one injured me pretty gravely.

It is if one is involutarity commited byit

Jon Wells is aclassic example of creationist hypocrisy.He complains that Haeckel's drawings were faked and still being taught, and that the peppered moth photos are staged, and therefore fraudulent.Have you looked at either of the amazing two Jon Wells' research publications?Well, I haven't either, except for their abstracts. But in his own research, Wells' removed cytoplasm from Xenopus eggs and teated them with various experimental conditions to see how their development was affected.Tell us, Z - can any conclusions about nature be drawn from Wells' own research, if we use the "just as it is in nature" criterion that Wells' seems to demand be applied to supporting evolutionary evidence?

Z appears to be conspicuously absent.

While we are all impressed by your extensive vocabulary and command of the English language, please pause to take a breath once in a while.I have no doubt you are knowledgeable [about what, I have no idea]. Please try to communicate as well.

Haeckel's drawings are an (off topic?) issue at the "Lucy and Secular Humanism" topic, which is currently at message 56.Let's see if I can divert that discussion to this topic.Adminnemooseus

Can you address my message to you in this thread.The original is at Message 62Which has been closed for topic drift. This is the appropriate thread for this discussion.

---

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)

In spite of all the various disclaimers and the long history of carelessness with those dammed drawings I still think it is misleading to reproduce them.If one disclaimers the hell out of them but still shows drawings that are more similar to each other than is justifiable that is misleading and, to some degree, dishonest.However, what isn't clear is how "fudged" the drawings are. I am agreeing that they are becase many experts say they were. When I look at them and the posted pictures I see only a little fudge and not enough to invalidate the overall picture. There is, as noted elsewhere, some "fudge" in all drawings. That is part of the reason for doing them; To clarify something.

As I've pointed ot the apparent motivation was to support Haeckel's own distinctive (and non-Darwinian) ideas. Since it was Haeckel's rival, von Baer, whose ideas were accepted I don't think that there is any grounds for claiming that there is deliberate deception in the use of these drawings or even any clear harm in their use. That is not to say that it was right to use those illustrations, just that it wasn't very bad in any practical terms.

The fact the drawings were still in textbooks as late as 1998 and maybe even today is an indication, to me, of a basic delusion or dishonesty in the way evolution is taught and believed.It is deceptive, and imo, most of the way evolution is presented relies on overstatements and "fudged facts" and casts serious doubt on the credibility of it's proponents, especially in light of their defense of the use of such drawings.Btw, I am not arguing there is no evidence for common descent (ToE), just that it is characterized as much by indoctrination as education.

You don't actually address the points I raised.And it is quite clear from your reponse what this is about - it's another attempt at a smear. You haven't got any evidence of significnat dishonesty. But that doesn't stop you making accusatiosn you know that you can't support.Ever heard of the Ten Commandments ? Does "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" ring any bells ?