Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, in this video I talk about just a handful of the many books that attempt to refute ID. Again, I would be interested to know what others think are the best books that attempt to show ID is wrong.

Ten (or so) Anti-Intelligent Design Books You Should Read

Comments
DNA doesn't do anything but break down. It is basically inert. Inside a living organism DNA codes for different RNAs. It can't do anything without an existing suite of specific proteins and systems.ET
July 4, 2021
July
07
Jul
4
04
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
More unproductive information. A quote from Blume.
If you asked 100 random educated people what DNA does, my bet is you wouldn’t get one correct answer.
What if one asked 100 UD readers? How many would be correct? Another quote by Blume. About the mapping of the human genome.
The most obvious results and conclusions of the Genome Project were and are ignored by evolution scientists, and by most biological scientists and teachers. The Genome Project is treated as if it’s a boon to evolution, instead of the evolution killer that it actually is. It’s business as usual
And another about the evolution debate
Whenever there’s an argument regarding whether evolution can form complex body parts, such as eyes, hearts, brains, and skeletal systems, evo-illusionists always morph the argument into whether or not evolution can change traits and characteristics.
Is he wrong? This is one of the biggest logical fallacies Darwinist always use. Often called avoiding the issue.jerry
July 4, 2021
July
07
Jul
4
04
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
are we looping back to unproductive exchanges?
You got to be kidding. Please tell me what is unproductive? I know almost as much about design as you do though I certainly don’t spend as much time on it. I find Blume’s insight amazing. He and Jonathan Wells are on the same page. I will continue to express my reactions to his writings. If those who say they are interested in design don’t read him, then they sre missing an understanding I haven’t seen before. Certainly not on this site. I’ll repeat what I said on the other thread.
DNA has nothing to do with the evolution debate.
Prove me wrong! This is a thread on books on design. Hardly inappropriate.jerry
July 4, 2021
July
07
Jul
4
04
2021
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Jerry, are we looping back to unproductive exchanges? Please consider recent threads. KFkairosfocus
July 4, 2021
July
07
Jul
4
04
2021
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
I’m beginning to believe Blume is the most intuitive genius of all of design theory. His concept that Darwinism/modern synthesis is just an illusion has changed my whole perception of the evolution debate. His story of the discovery of DNA is alone worth the read. His most insightful conclusion.
DNA is an illusion.
DNA just codes for proteins which are very important but are far from what life is about.
“Even though it only is a tool in the formation of proteins, evo-illusionists have been able to hijack DNA and form the illusion that naturally selected copy errors in DNA have produced every body part, biochemical system, and species on Earth; truly and amazing illusion.
The secret has always been in the assembly of body parts and DNA does not direct this. Best learning experience on design in years. jerry
July 3, 2021
July
07
Jul
3
03
2021
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Stephen Blume Youtube Channel I watched only one video Evolution of the bird and flight and I found few original arguments never heard before and as a bonus Blume has an umbelievable humor and irony toward darwinists and their arguments.Sandy
July 3, 2021
July
07
Jul
3
03
2021
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Want to understand design more clearly then read Blume. I’m rapidly becoming convinced he’s the best design writer there has been. He has three small books and so far I am a third through one. In the Evo-Illusion, why IID trumps ID and Evolution 2nd edition. He has done the best job I have seen of showing design in the invention of the universe. He has one simple explanation after the other about atoms, particles, forces etc. Did you know that if you had a measuring tape that stretched across the visible universe and it represented the strong force, that 1 inch of that tape would represent gravity. A much better example than a comparison of something to 10 to some large number. And this relationship is fine tuned. For $8 you can have all three of Blume’s books. Probably one of the best returns on investment one could ever make. Let’s hear it for             Ingenious Invention Design or IIDjerry
July 3, 2021
July
07
Jul
3
03
2021
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Why many didn’t hear about Blume? He is a genius.
Well he certainly has a fresh perspective which I am delighted to read. I found him on Quora where he discusses politics and evolution. Mostly politics recently from what I can see. https://www.quora.com/profile/Stephen-Thomas-Blume He doesn't seem to have written anything in the last few years but has turned his books into Kindle version, the last one published in April of this year.jerry
July 2, 2021
July
07
Jul
2
02
2021
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
A few months ago one of our anti ID people recommended a philosophy of science expert (John S Wilkins) as one who understood the modern world. This choice was seconded by another anti ID person here who said he frequented sites where Wilkins was well respected. So I went to Wilkins' blog and he trashed Intelligent Design and recommended an author on evolutionary biology named Kostas Kampourakis who has written two evolutionary biology books in the last 10 years, each called Understanding Evolution. In neither of Kampourakis' two books does he deal with macro-evolution. He mentions it at best a couple times in passing but does not focus on it at all. But he trashes ID which is all about macro-evolution in terms of the evolution debate. So this. is another of the dodges, used by Darwinists or anti-ID people. They don't deal with the important area of evolutionary biology and. when ID questions this important area, ID is trashed. My guess the best word to describe this is "hypocrisy."jerry
July 2, 2021
July
07
Jul
2
02
2021
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Why many didn't hear about Blume? He is a genius.Sandy
July 2, 2021
July
07
Jul
2
02
2021
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Blume introduces 10 characteristics of design:
1. UTILITY: highly defined function 2. LOCATION: specifically located to accomplish its function. Again, I would recommend a list of all the deceptive tricks that anti ID people use to discredit it. 3. INDIVIDUAL SHAPE: very specific shape/configuration which makes it conducive to accomplishing its specific function. 4. COMMON SHAPE: Its specific shape and configuration is common in like entities in all locations. 5. ASSEMBLY: made up of multiple primitive components 6. SUB-FUNCTION: fulfill their sub-function, which is major function of the entity. 7. INVENTION: requires invention for its existence. When it first existed, it was new, useful, and not obvious. 8. COPIED OR STUDIED BY MAN: Human intelligent engineers attempt to make copies and models of the entity that previously existed only in nature. 9. NOT BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY RANDOM OCCURRENCES: never been demonstrated that random natural happenings can invent the entity 10. COMPLEXITY: inversely proportional to the ability and chance of random happenstances in nature building the entity in question.
The descriptions after each point have been abbreviated. Are these all there is to design? Are they redundant? Are some not needed? Blume has obviously thought a lot about this and published. But ignored by UD.jerry
July 2, 2021
July
07
Jul
2
02
2021
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
Kf, Your comment will convince no one. It’s dense, incoherent and poorly written. It’s obvious the OP author does not understand ID well based on his video. So I am looking for other interpretations. Already in the beginning he clearly presents his Road to Damascus moment when he realizes the fossil record disproves Darwinism. He also nails the typical defender of Darwin by their robotic debate tactics. Still mainly at the beginning.jerry
July 2, 2021
July
07
Jul
2
02
2021
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Jerry, we can recognise, but to reduce to scales, suggest patterns and dynamics becomes difficult, especially when we are in effect trying to analyse and measure the extreme we call genius. The creator of TRIZ was in fact a recognised genius, TRIZ is itself a high level invention. ID has focussed on the more modest task of identifying intelligently directed configuration from observable traces. It turns out that this understanding of design as concept and as actual implementation, allows us to see the importance of implicit information in organisation, then to use bits tied to function based on complex configuration as a measure of complexity. Description languages can then describe configurations, similar to the 20-questions parlour game, and of course autocad etc exemplify. Functional specificity comes from recognising that configuration based function implies tight specification putting one on deeply isolated islands of function amidst vast seas of non-functional gibberish. Then, we see the issue of orientation, arrangement and coupling of parts, as can be seen through the issue of chaining appropriately oriented glyphs to make meaningful English sentences. This extends to algorithmic, informational strings such as in R/DNA. From such we can soon see that beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, undirected blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are inadequate explanations, but design readily accounts for such. Then, we look at the world of life, clear design by language using agency [codes! algorithms!]. The von Neumann kinematic self replicator shows that this applies too, to what makes reproduction possible, it is as Paley pointed out, a massive increment in the design. The mathematician identified is another recognised genius. KFkairosfocus
July 2, 2021
July
07
Jul
2
02
2021
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
I wish his website were more current
He is apparently in his mid to late 70's He changed his mind after being a believer for years when he saw no changes in the fossil record. After reading a little further, maybe ID should be called XD instead for extreme design. Still only in the beginning of his book. He came here several years ago and was ignored.jerry
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
I have read his first one, and it takes no prisoners. He's very entertaining. I wish his website were more current, but everyone gets tired of debating the atheist materialists. Jerry, I will be particularly interested in your comments about where he calculates the rate of population increase, and how closely that correlates with what we objectively observe. It's toward the back of the book.AnimatedDust
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
ingeniousness is extremely hard to study
Is it? I believe you are the one who introduced TRIZ here. Modern day assessment of invention is that it is a group effort. First comes the big idea then one innovation after the other. He specifically said
Later in this book I will discuss how I came up with the terminology, and why it more closely matches nature’s reality
Anyway I will read his books. So far they look interesting.jerry
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
KF : “Jerry ingeniousness is extremely hard to study” An apt adjective, though, no? Invention isn’t. We do it all the time here.AnimatedDust
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Jerry ingeniousness is extremely hard to study KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
The author should check out Stephen Blume for a possibly more insightful look at design. He redefines it as IID or Ingenious Invention and Design
IID: There are no words in the English language that can describe the ingeniousness of the designs of nature. They are beyond comprehension and therefore indescribable in any language. ID or Intelligent Design is a completely simplistic attempt to verbally describe what cannot be described. ID doesn’t include the most astounding part of the origin of nature: invention. Invention is far more stunning than is design. It’s rarely recognized as such. I fully realize the fact that mere words in any language cannot be put together to describe the source of nature and it’s biological systems. Ingenious Invention and Design, or IID, is my attempt at doing so. It’s far closer than the humdrum mind-numbing term Intelligent Design. Later in this book I will discuss how I came up with the terminology, and why it more closely matches nature’s reality. Do I think, on my say, that ID should be replaced with IID? Of course, I do.
His website has not been updated in 7 years and his books go back before them but he is still alive and active since he has issued Kindle versions of his books. Personal site https://evoillusion.org Amazon site https://www.amazon.com/Dr.-Stephen-Thomas-Blume/e/B01IJOSE2O/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0 Have to read his books or at least the latest one published on Kindle a couple months ago which was first published in 2013. He does not make the UD radar as nothing has been published on his writings here.jerry
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
F/N: Section on Haeckel:
Haeckel's illustrations show vertebrate embryos at different stages of development, which exhibit embryonic resemblance as support for evolution, recapitulation as evidence of the Biogenetic Law, and phenotypic divergence as evidence of von Baer's laws. The series of twenty-four embryos from the early editions of Haeckel's Anthropogenie remain the most famous. The different species are arranged in columns, and the different stages in rows. Similarities can be seen along the first two rows; the appearance of specialized characters in each species can be seen in the columns and a diagonal interpretation leads one to Haeckel's idea of recapitulation. [--> notice, no recognition of the highly misleading and inaccurate nature, also note that this problem also appears in say his drawings of heads of men and other primates] Haeckel's embryo drawings are primarily intended to express his theory of embryonic development, the Biogenetic Law, which in turn assumes (but is not crucial to) the evolutionary concept of common descent. His postulation of embryonic development coincides with his understanding of evolution as a developmental process.[7] In and around 1800, embryology fused with comparative anatomy as the primary foundation of morphology.[8] Ernst Haeckel, along with Karl von Baer and Wilhelm His, are primarily influential in forming the preliminary foundations of 'phylogenetic embryology' based on principles of evolution.[9] Haeckel's 'Biogenetic Law' portrays the parallel relationship between an embryo's development and phylogenetic history. The term, 'recapitulation,’ has come to embody Haeckel's Biogenetic Law, for embryonic development is a recapitulation of evolution.[10] Haeckel proposes that all classes of vertebrates pass through an evolutionarily conserved “phylotypic” stage of development, a period of reduced phenotypic diversity among higher embryos.[11] Only in later development do particular differences appear. Haeckel portrays a concrete demonstration of his Biogenetic Law through his Gastrea theory, in which he argues that the early cup-shaped gastrula stage of development is a universal feature of multi-celled animals. An ancestral form existed, known as the gastrea, which was a common ancestor to the corresponding gastrula.[12] Haeckel argues that certain features in embryonic development are conserved and palingenetic, while others are caenogenetic. Caenogenesis represents "the blurring of ancestral resemblances in development", which are said to be the result of certain adaptations to embryonic life due to environmental changes.[13] In his drawings, Haeckel cites the notochord, pharyngeal arches and clefts, pronephros and neural tube as palingenetic features. However, the yolk sac, extra-embryonic membranes, egg membranes and endocardial tube are considered caenogenetic features.[14] The addition of terminal adult stages and the telescoping, or driving back, of such stages to descendant's embryonic stages are likewise representative of Haeckelian embryonic development. In addressing his embryo drawings to a general audience, Haeckel does not cite any sources, which gives his opponents the freedom to make assumptions regarding the originality of his work.[15] [--> notice failure to address the serious defects]
Such gives me, for cause, little confidence in this article and similar ones at the notoriously biased and manipulative, ideologically dominated wikipedia. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
F/N: Wiki's lead for the Embryo Drawings article:
Embryo drawing is the illustration of embryos in their developmental sequence. In plants and animals, an embryo develops from a zygote, the single cell that results when an egg and sperm fuse during fertilization. In animals, the zygote divides repeatedly to form a ball of cells, which then forms a set of tissue layers that migrate and fold to form an early embryo. Images of embryos provide a means of comparing embryos of different ages, and species. To this day, embryo drawings are made in undergraduate developmental biology lessons. Comparing different embryonic stages of different animals is [--> not, was] a tool that can be used to infer relationships between species, and thus biological evolution. This has been a source of quite some controversy, both now and in the past. Ernst Haeckel at the University of Basel pioneered in this field. By comparing different embryonic stages of different vertebrate species, he formulated the recapitulation theory. [--> fraud in drawings not admitted, nor their role in textbooks for over a century]This theory states that an animal's embryonic development follows exactly the same sequence as the sequence of its evolutionary ancestors. Haeckel's work and the ensuing controversy linked the fields of developmental biology and comparative anatomy into comparative embryology. From a more modern perspective, Haeckel's drawings were the beginnings of the field of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). The study of comparative embryology aims to prove or disprove that vertebrate embryos of different classes (e.g. mammals vs. fish) follow a similar developmental path due to their common ancestry. Such developing vertebrates have similar genes, which determine the basic body plan. However, further development allows for the distinguishing of distinct characteristics as adults.
Evasion points to half truth, thence, the problems highlighted by Wells have a serious point. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
AC, do you notice, non-admission in that clip of what went on in textbooks for over a century? Especially i/l/o the further point that this "evidence" was claimed to be the strongest, implying just how weak other lines were once such has been broken. Please, get a clue. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Did God allow the scientists to study genome , embriology? This is copyright infringement on God's work. It's piracy but even so "the scientists" have no clue no matter how long will study because the technology is too advanced for humans.Sandy
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
I now clip the Wells Am Spec article, recall, Dec 2000/Jan 2001: >>Darwin thought “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory came from embry- ology. Darwin was not an embryologist, however, so he relied on the work of German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who produced drawings of embryos from various classes of vertebrates to show that they are virtually identical in their earliest stages, and become noticeably different only as they develop. It was this pattern that Darwin found so convincing. This may be the most egregious of distor- tions, since biologists have known for over a cen- tury that vertebrate embryos never look as similar as Haeckel drew them. In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were sup- posedly from different classes. In others, he doc- tored his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really were. Haeckel’s con- temporaries repeatedly criticized him for these mis- representations, and charges of fraud abounded in his lifetime. In 1997, British embryologist Michael Richardson and an international team of experts compared Haeckel’s drawings with photographs of actual vertebrate embryos, demonstrating conclu- sively that the drawings misrepresent the truth. The drawings are misleading in another way. Darwin based his inference of common ancestry on the belief that the earliest stages of embryo devel- opment are the most similar. Haeckel’s drawings, however, entirely omit the earliest stages, which are much different, and start at a more similar midway point. Embryologist William Ballard wrote in 1976 that it is “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence,” by “bending the facts of nature,” that one can argue that the early stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.” Yet some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in most current biology textbooks. Ste- phen Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory’s most vocal proponents, recently wrote that we should be “astonished and ashamed by the century of mind- less recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks.” (I will return below to the ques- tion of why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to bring them to widespread attention.)>> This context tells us that this claimed fact was viewed as quite strong evidence. So, we have rhetorical context. We can also see that Wells' brief summary is accurate in substance, highlighting the history and the then current impact of Richardson. Later, under homologies, Wells corrects 5th edn Biology by Raven and Johnson, McGraw-Hill, that human embryos never have "gills". That is, the "gill slits" highlighted as a homologous point in the diagram. The end of the article grades several major biology textbooks relative to the icons. None passes. One hopes there has been material improvement since then.kairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
@kairosfocus:
AC, evasion.
Thank you. I do try to evade your distractions and red herrings. :-)
As MW and I note, our HS textbook experience is that Haeckel’s drawings (fraudulent from the outset) were presented as though they were established, expertise and publisher editorial board-backed fact.
Wiki does not deny the fact that textbooks presented the drawings in a wrong light. Indeed Wiki mentions that fact. A truth you disgracefully call "weasel words".
... and how a few weasel words in the text are not enough.
Let's here Wiki's words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawing
"The first suggestion of fakery against Haeckel was made in late 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer in the Archiv für Anthropogenie.[28] Rutimeyer was a professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, who rejected natural selection as simply mechanistic and proposed an anti-materialist view of nature. (...) Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology,[32] demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[33]"
Until the only presentation is a frank admission of fraud, apology for allowing such to be used for a century, and admission that this points to needed rethinking, the discredit remains.
It's not Wiki's job to apologize for Haeckel's falsehoods. It's their job to point them out. Which they've done. :-)AndyClue
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
PPS: I looked up the phrase, and found Wiki again:
Recapitulation theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed using Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a historical hypothesis that the development of the embryo of an animal, from fertilization to gestation or hatching (ontogeny), goes through stages resembling or representing successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny). It was formulated in the 1820s by Étienne Serres based on the work of Johann Friedrich Meckel, after whom it is also known as Meckel–Serres law. Since embryos also evolve in different ways, the shortcomings of the theory had been recognized by the early 20th century, and it had been relegated to "biological mythology"[1] by the mid-20th century.[2] Analogies to recapitulation theory have been formulated in other fields, including cognitive development[3] and music criticism.[4]
If that mid C20 claim has substantial truth, what was the Haeckel drawing or the like doing in textbooks for decades thereafter? (I speak here as a witness, and MW reports much the same; where, there is considerable documentation of a widespread embarrassing fact. Of course, we cannot any longer trust web searches not to be censored on any topic that is of interest to the radical secularist progressives.) Something is not right, Wiki is giving a telling half-truth, once we know wider context. F/N: After considerable search, Wells' magazine article: https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/03/Survival-of-the-Fakest-Jonathan-Wells.pdfkairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
PS: I see you one Wiki and raise you one Creation dot com: https://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven https://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven-part-2 I clip the first of these: >>In 1997, a ‘bomb’ exploded in the face of all those evolutionists who so fondly kept on using this evolutionary ‘icon’, when embryologist (and evolutionist) Dr Michael K. Richardson and his colleagues published a variety of real photographs of the relevant embryos.5 These drawings of Haeckel were later compared directly to the actual photos, and they were found to be far more different than everybody even thought. Richardson also published photographs of species additional to those which appeared in Haeckel’s popular embryo plates. This showed that Haeckel conveniently used those which tended to look more similar, while ignoring those which were different. Although a minority of honest evolutionists have appreciated Richardson’s work, such as Stephen Jay Gould, Scott F. Gilbert (author of developmental biological books) and Paul Dombrowsky (a specialist in rhetoric), the embarrassment was just too severe and the iconic embryos too beloved among textbook authors to let things stay as they were. Robert John Richards, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, made a concerted attempt to rehabilitate not only the history around Haeckel, but also the very embryo sketches themselves. In 2008/9 Richards published a book and a paper in which he made some serious attempts to clear and clean up the name of his hero, Ernst Haeckel. My paper will look mainly at the works of Haeckel and the scientific issues around them, specifically set out in Richards’ paper named Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud not proven.6 Where necessary, related issues will be discussed. Michael Richardson and his co-workers’ photos of actual embryos had shown just how far Haeckel’s illustrations were from reality. It is thus no surprise that Robert Richards tries every possible thing to disprove Richardson and others’ work and critiques it as “logically mischievous, historically naive, and founded on highly misleading photography” (p. 148). His target is fully set on the photos of Richardson et al.>> From the second, on early objections (notice, 1868): >>One of the first troubles in Haeckel’s career concerned illustrations in the first edition (1868) of what would become his wildly popular book, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte.8 When the Swiss zoologist, anatomist and palaeontologist Ludwig Rütimeyer reviewed the book in 1868,9 he noticed that Haeckel had used the same woodcut to print animal embryo illustrations of three (quite) different types of animals. We must point out that the problem is also that Haeckel tried to draw conclusions from these artificially created similarities. In this case, Haeckel’s illustrations purported to represent a dog, chicken, and turtle embryo at what Haeckel coined to be the Sandal-stage (see figure 1). The ‘Sandal-stage’ is an old term for the neurula embryo.10 This is the phase when neurulation begins, i.e. the neural plate forms, then folds to form the neural tube, the precursor to the brain and central nervous system. It is also important to note that these embryos are generally in an earlier stage than the usual Haeckelian embryos which we sometimes still find in various textbooks in modern times. All this caused immense (and appropriate) disapproval and criticism as being misleading and unscientific. Rütimeyer was only the first of many people to launch complaints against Haeckel.>> The issue is quite clear. F/N: Icons, I suggest the PDF from Archive https://archive.org/details/Jonathan.Wells.Icons.of.Evolutionkairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
AC, evasion. The point of the known bias of Wiki's dominant ideological factions will lead them to wrench almost anything to attack design thinkers, as say the main article on ID notoriously demonstrates. The antidote to distortion is truth, especially historically anchored truth. As MW and I note, our HS textbook experience is that Haeckel's drawings (fraudulent from the outset) were presented as though they were established, expertise and publisher editorial board-backed fact. Where, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny summarises thinking that embryological "evolution" is a significant line of evidence for the course of evolution, going back to Darwin et al. Wells' point in his Icons, was to show prevalence after over 100 years, of a particularly dubious icon, and in that he succeeded, which was an embarrassment to those promoting evolutionism, for they had to explain how they could sustain something so indefensible in a context of education in Science. There is no justification for such behaviour, and unfortunately, the icon continued to be in place in too many textbooks for quite some years after this prominent critique. That compounds the indefensibility. MW points out that a picture is worth a 1,000 words and how a few weasel words in the text are not enough. Until the only presentation is a frank admission of fraud, apology for allowing such to be used for a century, and admission that this points to needed rethinking, the discredit remains. Wiki is trying to obfuscate indefensible history and the need to acknowledge it. Also, there are many other icons that are questionable if not outright frauds, including the one set up by Darwin himself in the sole illustration in Origin, the tree of life. There is no credible blind chance and mechanical necessity explanation for origin of cell based life using complex coded algorithmic information [~100k - 1 million bits] and there is none for the 10 - 100+ million further bits to specify novel body plans across the notorious tree. Further, such functionally specific complex organisation and/or information has just one known source, on trillions of observed cases. Intelligently directed configuration. It is high time that textbooks, museums and promoters of evolutionary materialistic scientism admitted this massively evident fact too. The shoddy rhetoric evident in book titles alone speaks telling volumes. KFkairosfocus
July 1, 2021
July
07
Jul
1
01
2021
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
@kairosfocus:
AC, present in an historical context is suggestive of half truth. To begin with, from outset, the drawings were distorted and manipulative, constituting educational fraud used to manipulate public perceptions of embryology and its relationship to alleged evolutionary history: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. (...)
The topic is Wiki and rewriting of history. Please try to stay on topic. What we see from Wiki is a reference that Haeckel's drawings were wrongfully used in text books. And wee see a correction of Well's falsehoods about certain textbooks. Wiki didn't claim that your textbook didn't propagate the drawings as truth. There was no rewriting of history on Wiki, as you wrongfully suggested. Or, if there was, you've failed to show it.AndyClue
June 30, 2021
June
06
Jun
30
30
2021
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
KF @ 27, I had the same experience as you in my high-school biology class. The Haeckel diagrams were presented as fact. It’s instructive to see how Darwinists continue to keep the drawings in the textbooks, then bury a brief comment somewhere in the label or text to use as a foil when they’re called on it. They know that a picture is worth a thousand words, and that the lasting effects of the diagrams overwhelm any brief comments. Their science is atrocious, but their propaganda abilities are considerable.MikeW
June 30, 2021
June
06
Jun
30
30
2021
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply