I had no idea that my original literature-bluffing post would spark this much discussion, but I’m certainly pleased that it did.
The entire history of Darwinian theory has been characterized by literature bluffing and legend accepted as fact. Phillip Johnson has observed that his challenges are not new, and that they have been dismissed with comments like, “These concerns were addressed long ago.” But when Phil checked the literature, he discovered that his concerns were not addressed with anything more convincing than glorified speculation. This Darwinian tradition persists.
It was known in Haeckel’s day that his embryo drawings were faked, but these drawings persisted in public-school textbooks for more than a century. How could this have possibly happened in a theoretically “self-correcting” scientific discipline?
It happened because of literature bluffing, that was passed down through generations. It happened because a legend had arisen, that many people desperately wanted to believe.
This entire phenomenon is a manifestation of the blind leading the blind, or, perhaps more appropriately, the deceived leading the deceived.