Intelligent Design

Article on science fraud discusses Haeckel’s faked-up embryos as if fakery matters

Spread the love

some of Haeckel’s embryos, 1874

Wow. Are we emerging from the tunnel of post-modernism? The linked story is not from an ID site.

It’s almost as if fraud, falsehood, and fakery are a moral problem, at least in some places again:

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel was convinced that, according to his famous maxim, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”—in other words, that over the course of its embryonic development, an animal passes through different stages comparable to those of the previous species in its evolutionary lineage. In Anthropogenie oder Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen (1874), Haeckel published a plate of his drawings showing the three successive stages of the embryonic development of the fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit, pig, and human being. A single glance at the drawings reveals that the embryos are very similar at an early stage in development.

As soon as the book was published, these illustrations met with serious criticism from some of Haeckel’s colleagues and rival embryologists. Yet it would take a full century and the comparison of Haeckel’s drawings with photographs of embryos of the same species for it to become clear that the former were far closer to works of art than scientific observation. Today, we know that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny, and that the highly talented artist Ernst Haeckel drew these plates of embryos to illustrate perfectly a theory to which he was deeply attached.

Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis, “The Many Faces of Scientific Fraud” at Quillette

But wait. What happened during that full century and a lot more years?

In recent memory, we were always being told that it doesn’t really matter [that this garbage continues to appear in textbooks] because the basic idea is right? And, get this, more correct accounts would provide support for creationism?

It was pointless, in those days, to suggest that an idea like Darwinism, that supposedly underlies and makes sense of all biology, should not rely on fakery. People who built edifices of straw thought that the solution was simply to ban matchsticks.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

10 Replies to “Article on science fraud discusses Haeckel’s faked-up embryos as if fakery matters

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Haeckel’s Embryos are far from the only fraud perpetrated by Darwinists.

    Must reading for anyone concerned about their children being taught deceptive information about evolution in grade school textbooks is Jonathan Wells’s book ‘Icons Of Evolution’

    ‘Icons Of Evolution’ – Tenth Anniversary
    http://www.iconsofevolution.com/index.php3
    video clip playlist:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS2RPQAPifs6t__mIAqITpYy

    Here are two articles defending Wells’s criticism against the Ten Icons of Evolution in detail here:

    Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers “Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2....._answ.html

    A Solid 10: Concluding My Review of Massimo Pigliucci’s Treatment of Jonathan Wells’s Icons of Evolution – June 6, 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....86281.html

    Dr. Wells has fairly recently wrote a subsequent book, “Zombie Science”, showing how Darwinists, since they don’t have any real evidence to support their grandiose claim, are forced to constantly recycle, or try to recycle, that fraudulent evidence into grade school textbooks in order to try to continually deceive students into believing in Darwinian evolution:

    Jonathan Wells Presents Zombie Science at National Book Launch – video – 2017
    https://youtu.be/I2UHLPVHjug?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1rO4HiEiRBLalzTx-TaKYC&t=79

    Jonathan Wells Talks About His New Book — Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution- April 19, 2017
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/04/jonathan-wells-talks-about-his-new-book-zombie-science-more-icons-of-evolution/
    Part 2
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/04/jonathan-wells-talks-about-his-new-book-zombie-science-more-icons-of-evolution-pt-2/

    Not surprisingly, the indoctrination into Darwinian evolution with deceptive evidence continues after grade school. In the following interview, Dr. Cornelius Hunter discusses some of the misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course

    Selling Evolution To Young People Through Deception
    podcast – On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently signed up to take a free online course at Duke University titled “Introduction to Genetics and Evolution.” Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....0_02-08_00

    One final note, Darwinists will often falsely claim that to teach Intelligent Design in school is to teach religion in school (and claim that ID therefore violates the establishment clause of the constitution). What they don’t mention is the fact that Darwinian evolution, since it has ZERO real time scientific evidence supporting its sweeping claims,

    Darwin vs. Microbes (Where’s the substantiating evidence for Darwinism?)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntxc4X9Zt-I

    … since it has ZERO real time scientific evidence supporting its sweeping claims, (and since science itself is predicated on presuppositions that can only be properly grounded within Theism), Darwinism is itself crucially dependent on faulty Theological presuppositions. That is to say, to teach Darwinism is schools is, ironically, to teach (a false) religion to your children in public school.

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    – per evolutionnews

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Published – 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    per blyinstitute

    Bottom line, Darwinists are crucially dependent on fraudulent evidence and faulty theology in order to try to teach a false religion to your children.

    Verse:

    Matthew 24:4
    And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray.

  2. 2
    EDTA says:

    >” Today, we know that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny, ”

    Indeed times are changing. Twenty years ago, I was told in no uncertain terms by a believer in evolution that ontogeny does indeed recapitulate phylogeny, because it was in his college textbook by golly. And it will probably be the case for the rest of his life.

    P.S. Merry Christmas to all!

  3. 3
    Sven Mil says:

    You guys know that you each had gill slits for a while right?

  4. 4
    EDTA says:

    Sven Mil,

    Are you referring to the pharyngeal arches? Those are not actual slits, nor do they turn into anything resembling gills in the fully developed human. They are mis-named, but in Haeckel’s day, they resembled gill slits, and hence fit his theory.

  5. 5
    AaronS1978 says:

    Don’t entertain Sven Mil he is a troll and has nothing meaningful to say literally ignore him

  6. 6
    polistra says:

    Despite the headline, the article isn’t really focused on fraud. It’s more about inevitable biases and how to control them. Pretty good advice.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Sven Mil claims that

    You guys know that you each had gill slits for a while right?

    Evolutionary theory has falsely led Sven Mil into seeing a weasel* in the cloud

    “Human embryos do not have gill slits; they have pharyngeal pouches. In fish, these develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds, they develop into other structures and are never even rudimentary gills. Calling them gill slits is reading Darwinian theory into the evidence. There is no way gill slits can serve as evidence for evolution.”
    – Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc., pp. 105-107.
    This claim is true, human embryos never have gills. What they do have are pharyngeal clefts that develop into organs that have nothing to do with breathing. Pharyngeal clefts seperate pharyngeal arches which appear as ridges on the outside of the embryo’s neck region. The first arch is involved in the development of the face and also ossifies to form the malleus and incus of the middle ear. The second pharyngeal arch ossifies to form the stapes of the middle ear. The fourth and sixth arches give rise to most of the muscles of larynx, pharynx, and soft palate (HEAD AND NECK – PHARYNGEAL (Branchial) ARCHES)
    http://creationwiki.org/Human_.....k.Origins)

    *Seeing a weasel in the cloud refers to a scene in Shakespeare,,,

    Ham. Do you see yonder cloud that ’s almost in shape of a camel?
    Pol. By the mass, and ’t is like a camel, indeed.
    Ham. Methinks it is like a weasel.
    Pol. It is backed like a weasel.
    Ham. Or like a whale?
    Pol. Very like a whale.
    http://www.bartleby.com/100/138.32.147.html

    The phrase ‘seeing a weasel in the cloud’ thus refers to how easily some people can be led astray to see imaginary things that simply are not there.

    Further notes:

    “The earliest events leading from the first division of the egg cell to the blastula stage in amphibians, reptiles and mammals are illustrated in figure 5.4. Even to the untrained zoologist it is obvious that neither the blastula itself, nor the sequence of events that lead to its formation, is identical in any of the vertebrate classes shown. The differences become even more striking in the next major phase of in embryo formation – gastrulation. This involves a complex sequence of cell movements whereby the cells of the blastula rearrange themselves, eventually resulting in the transformation of the blastula into the intricate folded form of the early embryo, or gastrula, which consists of three basic germ cell layers: the ectoderm, which gives rise to the skin and the nervous system; the mesoderm, which gives rise to muscle and skeletal tissues; and the endoderm, which gives rise to the lining of the alimentary tract as well as to the liver and pancreas.,,, In some ways the egg cell, blastula, and gastrula stages in the different vertebrate classes are so dissimilar that, where it not for the close resemblance in the basic body plan of all adult vertebrates, it seems unlikely that they would have been classed as belonging to the same phylum. There is no question that, because of the great dissimilarity of the early stages of embryogenesis in the different vertebrate classes, organs and structures considered homologous in adult vertebrates cannot be traced back to homologous cells or regions in the earliest stages of embryogenesis. In other words, homologous structures are arrived at by different routes.”
    Michael Denton – Evolution: A Theory in Crisis – pg 145-146

    Failures of Evolution: Phylogeny Recapitulates Ontogeny
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv1TyS09nLM

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

  8. 8
    ET says:

    Sven Mil:

    You guys know that you each had gill slits for a while right?

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The ONLY reason for the “gill slit” nomenclature is due to the personal bias of evos who think fish can evolve into something other than fish. Too bad evos don’t have a mechanism capable of producing developmental biology let alone fish with gills.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    SM, the notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has long since exploded. Haeckel’s embryological drawings, likewise, have long since been exposed as frauds. KF

  10. 10
    Truthfreedom says:

    ‘Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’.

    Hehehe. Fraud exposed and laughed at.

    ‘Natural Selection is a blind watchmaker ‘. Hehehe. This will be the next fraud exposed and laughed at 🙂

Leave a Reply