In Flock of Dodos, or Pack of Lies?, Jonathan Wells describes how Darwinist Randy Olson filmed a scene to argue the point that Haeckel’s embryos are not in recent biology text books.
Olson concedes that the drawings are fraudulent, but he states on camera that Ã¢â‚¬Å“you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t find themÃ¢â‚¬Â in recent textbooks. In one scene, Olson hands Kansas attorney (and Darwin critic) John Calvert a recent biology textbook and challenges him to find HaeckelÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s drawings in it. Taken by surprise, Calvert canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do it. Afterwards, Olson displays a 1914 textbook containing the drawings but claims they havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t been used since then. The film then compares Icons of Evolution to a supermarket tabloid.
Calvert later faxed Olson pages from a recent textbook containing HaeckelÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s drawings, but Olson gives no hint of that in his film. Furthermore, Olson claims to have read Icons of Evolution, but if had he would have known that eight widely used biology textbooks with copyright dates between 1998 and 2000 contain versions of the faked drawings. After hearing reports of the film before it was released, I sent Olson an email in May 2006 citing three more textbooks with copyright dates of 2004 that contained HaeckelÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s drawings, and I suggested: Ã¢â‚¬Å“You owe it to your audiences to acknowledge that in this respect your film is promoting a demonstrable lie.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Olson ignored me.
I leave it to the reader to see PZ Myers and Olson’s slick use of equivocation. They equivocate the meaning of the phrase “Haeckel’s drawings continue to be used in text books”.
Is the issue about SOME textbooks or about ALL textbooks using Haeckel’s embryos? Wells is talking about SOME textbooks but Olson insinuates the issue is about ALL textbooks. He uses a theatrical gimmick in his “interview” with Calvert to insinuate that point. Such conduct inspired Wells to ask the question of Olson’s propaganda flick, “Flock of Dodos, or Pack of Lies?”.