Haeckel's embryos: Is the Discovery Institute right?

[pointyhairedhumanist]

A number of you will have seen DonExodus2's featuring Casey Luskin on a Fox News segment complaining about text books "getting it wrong on evolution". In case you haven't here it is:



So Casey Luskin claims that reproductions of Haeckel's embryos are still being used in text books. I didn't find the counter-claims entirely convincing, so I decided to email Casey Luskin and ask him if he could gve me the names of any text books that use these drawings, or derivatives of them. He sent me back the following links:

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos?
http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

The Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings Have Been Used to Promote
Evolution: Raven & Johnson (2002) (Part 2)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel_1.html

The Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings Have Been Used to Promote
Evolution: Miller & Levine (1994) (Part I)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel.html

A Newly Discovered Textbook Example Refuting NYT and NCSE's False Claims
About Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/a_newly_discovered_textbook_ex.html

SELECTED MODERN BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS THAT REPRINTED FALSE EMBRYO DIAGRAMS
DERIVED FROM HAECKEL
http://www.discovery.org/a/3895

A good discussion of this topic can also be found at:

Haeckel's Embryos: Setting the Record Straight (American Biology Teacher,
Vol. 61(5), May 1999) by Jonathan Wells at:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=downloa
d&id=629

He also used some quotes from Stephen J. Gould complaining about similar textbook errors.

So to put this all into context, I think that while Casey Luskin is obviously sending up a smokescreen, his point that textbooks shouldn't use Haeckel's drawings or derivatives is correct. This is but one of a number of false stories that seem to recur in science textbooks. But I am still curious as to whether any of these have actually been approved by the Texas Board of Education. Does anybody have any idea of how I could track these down?

 

[Pulsar]

The first book on the list in http://www.discovery.org/a/3895 is

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998), pg. 653

But on wikipedia, we read

Some version of Haeckel's drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid

and this book is cited as an example.

So, it looks like Discovery is quote-mining (at least this book).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So to put this all into context, I think that while Casey Luskin is obviously sending up a smokescreen, his point that textbooks shouldn't use Haeckel's drawings or derivatives is correct.

Actually, his point is absolutely NOT correct, as per the bolded part of the quote above. It is another dishonest claim from Luskin, who would probably lie to you if you asked him what time it is, based on his track record.

Here's the issue: Haeckel's theories about evolution were discredited BY SCIENTISTS a long time ago. His drawing came out decades after Darwin. The problem with his drawings were that they exaggerated the similarities between embryos. Luskin uses that to claim that ALL embryo drawing are frauds. That's like claiming that the existence of a counterfeit $100 bill is evidence that ALL $100 bills are fake.

 

[DarwinsOtherTheory]

 

[IBSpify]

I love the way the Creationist tryed to weasel his way out of actually having to open up the text books and look for Haeckel's embryos in them

 

[GoodKat]

If the Discovery Institute say it, there is an extremely high probability that it is wrong.

 

[Pulsar]

DarwinsOtherTheory, that video was absolutely brilliant.
Scientist, amuzed: "Well, let's have a look into those school books, shall we?"
Creationist, starting to sweat: "What? Err... uhmm... oh shit."

 

[Otokogoroshi]

I was actually watching Fox news when that was aired.... I don't watch it willingly my father was ill so I was sitting down with him and well.... he's my dad so he gets to watch what he wants


The thing that wasn't mentioned and hasn't been mentioned is that in some cases he DID get it right. However to suggest that people these days still use his drawings as a model is laughable. We have actual pictures, real honest to goodness was taken in the womb pictures. Those aren't false.

Creationalists just want to pick on any 'weakness' they can find and the flaws of the past are sadly for them, the best they can come up with.

 

[Squawk]

PZ Myers has had a fair old bit to say on this particular topic recently (and in the past, well worth looking through his blog)

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/embryonic_similarities_in_the.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/casey_luskin_smirking_liar.php

Of those, I'd strongly recommend the first. The second was nicely on topic. For more of the same just put Haekel in the search on the left of the blog.

 

[Möbiµs]

I will have to play devil's advocate a bit and admit to having seen similar embryonic drawings in sixth or seventh grade here in Sweden. Probably not the exact Haeckel-drawings, but they weren't very far from the original ones.

This was about ten years ago. I hope the schools have updated their material since then.

 

[zakkro]

If I recall, DonE's argument was that Haeckel exaggerated the similarities between embryos, while Luskin is flat-out saying that every pictures/diagrams of embryos are fake. It's basically the same thing as saying that because Piltdown Man was fake every fossil used to show human evolution is fake.

 

[Möbiµs]

If I recall, DonE's argument was that Haeckel exaggerated the similarities between embryos, while Luskin is flat-out saying that every pictures/diagrams of embryos are fake. It's basically the same thing as saying that because Piltdown Man was fake every fossil used to show human evolution is fake.

Still, drawings generally tend to exaggerate the features of what it is portraying, especially if you're trying to prove a point. It's best to drop the sketches and use photographs instead so there wont be any more controversies.

 

[Squawk]

I will have to play devil's advocate a bit and admit to having seen similar embryonic drawings in sixth or seventh grade here in Sweden. Probably not the exact Haeckel-drawings, but they weren't very far from the original ones.

This was about ten years ago. I hope the schools have updated their material since then.

Mobius, that kinda misses the point. There are huge similarities in embryos, embryonic development is a huge source of evidence in and of itself for a shared ancestor. That Haekel wasn't truthful with his work is by the by, forget Haeckel unless you want to see an example of science exposing a fraud. It is perfectly valid to have embryonic comparisons in a textbook to show the similarities in development, it is not appropriate to have those put forward by Haeckel since they are a fraud.

 

[Möbiµs]

Mobius, that kinda misses the point. There are huge similarities in embryos, embryonic development is a huge source of evidence in and of itself for a shared ancestor. That Haekel wasn't truthful with his work is by the by, forget Haeckel unless you want to see an example of science exposing a fraud. It is perfectly valid to have embryonic comparisons in a textbook to show the similarities in development, it is not appropriate to have those put forward by Haeckel since they are a fraud.

Of course I understand that the similarities between embryos can give us an understanding of our common heritage, but drawings aren't proofs. You either show x-ray images or drop the argument completely in my opinion, since these biblehumpers will look for any kind of weakness in the theory.

Besides, why would do you need to use the embryonic images when you can just describe the common reproductive events of mammals. That to me is much more compelling evidence.

 

[zakkro]

Still, drawings generally tend to exaggerate the features of what it is portraying, especially if you're trying to prove a point. It's best to drop the sketches and use photographs instead so there wont be any more controversies.

Apparently no text books show them, anyways... and if they do, they probably point out that they're fraudulent or to make some other point.

 

[Moky]

For my own amusement I looked at my brothers college textbook for Biology. Absolutally nothing on him.

 

[Jared Jammer]

Whether or not Haekel's shameful drawings are still being used (evidence says they are, Darwinists say they're not) is not my primary concern. My biggest concern is, why did it take so long for them to be removed in the first place? They were only removed once it became common knowledge that they were fraudulent. That throws up a huge red flag with me, as it should with all honest people. If Dr. Jonathan Wells (reported IQ in the 180-190 range) hadn't made the fraud common knowledge with his masterpiece Icons of Evolution, would Darwinists still be deceiving the public regarding their accuracy? I'm a little shaken that we have so many people here defending this. It's almost as if you people put your word view above the truth. It's very alarming. I may need to go lay down.

 

[Jared Jammer]

Apparently no text books show them, anyways... and if they do, they probably point out that they're fraudulent or to make some other point.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sorry, but I burst out laughing when I read that. That's one of the most unintentionally funny things I've ever read. :lol:

 

[Squawk]

Whether or not Haekel's shameful drawings are still being used (evidence says they are, Darwinists say they're not) is not my primary concern.

I find that quite amusing. First up, what is a darwinist, and how are they distinct from Einsteinists and Newtonists?

Presuming that you refer to anyone who accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, are you accusing all "darwinists" of ignoring evidence? Can you please explain to me how you arrive at that conclusion? Since you state that evidence suggests those drawings are being used would you care to provide references from books in which they appear. As noted in this thread, none of us lot could find any.

My biggest concern is, why did it take so long for them to be removed in the first place?

Accepting your premise that the drawings did remain in text books for a given period of time we can look at why this would be a problem. Haekels drawings, though faked, show the similarities between different species as they develop. Those particular drawings were, as you rightly point out, faked, however the principle still stands. Developmental biology is a very well established science, the similarities between embryos of different species are remarkable.

The drawings from Haekel are fake, nobody disputes that. At the same time, they show something that is wel known to be true. Removing them from the textbooks wouldn't be a matter of urgency because it really doesn't matter at all that those particular drawings were faked when endeavouring to explain a general principle to a lay audience, or even to a school class.

As an similar example, would it matter that I showed a fake photo of a t-rex fossil instead of the genuine article by mistake? The genuine article does indeed exist and could have been used in the photo, somehow a mistake was made. For teaching purposes it makes no difference at all.


Of course in rigorous scientific circles it makes a huge difference, but if the Haekel photos are a relic in a book that someone forgot to update, quite frankly who cares? They make the point and they reflect reality, they just happen to be fakes themselves.

They were only removed once it became common knowledge that they were fraudulent.

Pretty much for the reasons mentioned above. It makes fuck all difference, the photos highlight something that is observed in reality, they just happen to be fake.

That throws up a huge red flag with me, as it should with all honest people.

Until you demonstrate an ability to interpret evidence rather than resort to doctrine and blind assertions I will take this with a pinch of salt. Your continual reference to darwinist's leads me to believe you are a creationist and as such a denier of evidence, not honest in the least.

If Dr. Jonathan Wells (reported IQ in the 180-190 range) hadn't made the fraud common knowledge with his masterpiece Icons of Evolution, would Darwinists still be deceiving the public regarding their accuracy?

Why does his IQ matter a jot? What has IQ got to do with the impact of a fake image in a text book? Its a matter of importance, and in this case it really doesn't matter at all. The fake images are used to convey an observation of reality simply because its too much of a pain to reprint thousands of books at huge cost for the sake of replacing an image that demonstrates the principle. If anything it provides a great talking point in a science lesson, personally I'd leave them in to teach.

I'm a little shaken that we have so many people here defending this.

Learn the reasons why and be shaken no more.

It's almost as if you people put your word view above the truth. It's very alarming. I may need to go lay down.

LMAO. Talk about projection. I presume you mean world view, not word view. Can you please explain to me what my world view is and precisely how it has been impacted by Haekel. Please disect my post so I can see to which points you refer. Please illucidate on your own "world view" so that I may know from where you come and can assess your claim to be honest properly.

 

[e2iPi]

If Dr. Jonathan Wells (reported IQ in the 180-190 range) hadn't made the fraud common knowledge with his masterpiece Icons of Evolution, would Darwinists still be deceiving the public regarding their accuracy?

First of all, you can have a high IQ and still be an idiot. Secondly, Dr. Wells didn't make it common knowledge, it was common knowledge before he published his book, but maybe not to creationists.
Thirdly, there is no need to deceive "the public" regarding their accuracy. I would be will to bet that the vast majority of "the public" has either no knowledge of or doesn't care about Haeckel's embryos.
Finally, embryonic similarities between vertebrates is a piece of supporting evidence for evolution. BUT, even if embryos of vertebrates were completely different, it would not invalidate evolution. Haeckel's dishonesty does not invalidate evolution.

i^2