The stink from Haeckel’s embryos
| June 27, 2013 | Posted by News under Darwinism, Education |
Further re Kevin Padian’s article on problems with the way evolution is taught in textbooks:
I commend to all bornagain’s summary of specific problems with Darwinian falsehoods in textbooks. These were covered by ID theorist Jonathan Wells’s Icons of Evolution (not one of Padian’s sources, it seems). I’d like to believe that Padian’s article signals that the Darwin lobby is turning over a new leaf. But then I have to ask myself why they didn’t do it decades ago, when the stink from Haeckel’s fraudulent embryos was already rising into the cloud cover … .
An incident that alerted me (O’Leary) twelve years ago to the intelligent design controversy was a teacher’s Web site on the Viceroy butterfly mimicking the Monarch in considerable detail, despite belonging to a different genus. (I later wrote about the mimicry here.) The teacher attempted to impose a Darwinian explanation on a set of facts that Darwinian gradualism obviously does not explain very well at all. What good is looking only five percent like another life form? Such a vague signal would not be read, thus could not provide a basis for natural selection. Clearly, some other natural cause is at work here.
Finally, he wrote, in effect, aw shucks, no, it doesn’t really work, but it makes a great explanation of Darwinian evolution.
Run that by us again, prof?
It. Doesn’t. Really. Work. But. It. Makes. A. Great. Explanation. Of. Darwinian. Evolution.
Ah yes I see. I do quite see now, prof. Thank you very much.
His site is long gone but the impression it left is indelible.
If Padian’s crew had been on the case about this type of stuff back then, when it mattered, they wouldn’t have to add a questionable sideline in climate change (where they are not experts) in order to keep going today. Heck, they wouldn’t even have to finally confront what is wrong with the textbooks.
5 Responses to The stink from Haeckel’s embryos
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jonathan Wells indicated that these faked embryo drawings were first exposed back in the 1860s. Stepehn Jay Gould of Harvard also noted that this was nothing new. And here I thought science was self-correcting.
Come now you guys know mimicry is false given enough time and enough chance anything can look like anything else, multiverse theory is proof that evolution is a fact! Anything can happen, no intent just blind dumb luck
From Denyse O’Leary: If it were science, it would be self-correcting.
This post got me thinking, Dr Liddle has been babbling about intent. Mimicry is intent because they intentionally mimic other animals…. There Dr Liddle proof of ID….
Of note to this comment of News,,
,,is this:
But then again anyone who can dogmatically insist that metamorphosis, despite having no evidence to the contrary, is not designed in the first place, is (IMHO) not really dealing with a full deck. Indeed, I was struck immediately, as Dr. Paul Nelson is at the 12:21 minute mark of this following video clip on butterfly metamorphosis, with the distinct notion that metamorphosis is, by all rights, a miracle with no possible naturalistic explanation as to how it came about:
But then again as a Christian, I have to admit to my own philosophical bias in all this in that I have always envisioned metamorphosis as a small prelude to what happens to us at some point in the future as related by St.Paul:
music: