Originally Posted by lesz

True, Haeckel did draw more than he saw. But basically, he wasn't that far wrong. Embryology does reflect phylogeny, and the similarity between embryos is a clue as to their evolutionary origins. It just isn't as simple as Haeckel imagined.

Yet the only time you hear about embyronic development from creationists is in the context of Haeckel. It is as if creationists have no clue about what evolution actually is nor do they want to discuss what it says. It's just fraud, fraud fraud! Sad isn't it?

Originally Posted by obvious_child

Yet the only time you hear about embyronic development from creationists is in the context of Haeckel. It is as if creationists have no clue about what evolution actually is nor do they want to discuss what it says. It's just fraud, fraud fraud! Sad isn't it?

Creationists don't "do" science. Naturally, they don't know squat about evolutionary theory. All they "know" is that it's the devil's invention, so they steer clear of it. Remarkable how much noise they make about something they have no understanding of.

Per Ardua Ad Ignoratia. Creationism in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by obvious_child

You made the argument that science still teaches it as fact and uses it. That ain't true.

The argument is that if evolutionists were completely honest, Haeckel’s fraud should have been completely abandoned, not occasionally sneaked through students textbooks to attempt to make a stronger case for evolution than actually exists. If evolutionists are even slightly dishonest like that, what would stop them from creating ~pretend Christians~ to help them make their case against creation? In your opening post, you gave us a 135 page link of Bryan Rehm’s testimony, with no specifics of where the relevant parts of the testimony are. Were you hoping that no one would actually check it? No one has through 33 posts, maybe it’s about time for it.

He is, first and foremost, a public school science teacher. Starting on page 93, he refers to his superior in the school district;

In addition to that, if his religious beliefs of
young earth creationism that he expressed are in
disagreement with evolution, what happens when we get to
the big bang theory and I'm teaching in physics that the
earth is billions of years old? And I saw my head on
the chopping block and my curriculum as being the next
to be altered when they realized what was there.

Personally, I live in the neighborhood, you know.
I live within the school district where I taught. You
used to be able to go out to any restaurant, sit down,
not worry about who was next to you. You could walk
down the street and say, hi, to everybody and get a nice
pleasant return.

Now people stare. They know you're a Plaintiff
or they know in this particular case that I'm a
candidate opposing the school board, and you can't sit
there and not worry about who's looking at you or what's
going to happen, you know. You'll go out and regularly
be called inappropriate things centering around the
concept of atheist.

They don't know me. They don't know that I'm the
co-director of the children's choir at church or that I
run the music halfway at the second service, or that,
you know, my wife and I run Vacation Bible School. Yet
they have no problem going around calling me an atheist
because my particular religious viewpoint doesn't agree
with that of the school board, which is a public entity
not a religious one.

Why “don’t they know him”? If they all share the same cozy little neighborhood, and that closeness is largely what makes him so uncomfortable, why don’t they know of his heavy church affiliation?

Religiously, the young earth creationism and that
influencing science is not what my religious views
entail. There is a separation there. You know, my
religion accepts that science can explain things in the
world as we perceive them, but that science is not going
to touch theology.

Doesn’t touch it? He doesn’t know that science is used as a weapon against theology? That’s a pretty heavy touch.

It can't explain the divine creator. In
intelligent design, every aspect I've ever heard of it,
is religious creationism. You know, if the designer is
not -- an intelligent designer is not a God, even if you
don't want to refer to it as Judea Christian God, what
is it? Aliens? Then you're still not addressing the
origins of life that you speak of. Where did the aliens
come from?

So there has to be a supernatural component to.
And that, to me, is religious. That's not my religion,
and that's not something that should be shared in the
science classroom.

There is no supernatural component to his religion? He runs vacation Bible school, and doesn’t believe in a supernatural component. I wish we knew what church denomination it was. We could ask his neighbors, but it appears they don’t know either. Can we detect a few hints of phoniness here?

Now, dropping down to the bottom of page 116, we have a little bit from his testimony to the other attorney; (‘Q’ for attorney, ‘A’ for Rehm)

You have a B.S. in science, correct?
A. Correct, physics.
Q. And you're a science educator?
A. Correct.
Q. You've also testified that in some of the classes
you've taught dealing with evolution, you used a
videotape that did discuss creationism, is that correct?
A. Yes, it did.
MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions,
Your Honor.

He used a videotape in his classroom that discussed creationism, yet he’s a plantif in a lawsuit to keep creationism and ID OUT of the science classroom? How does this make sense? It makes sense in only one way, that his videotape was a PUT-DOWN of creationism. He testified above that science DID NOT TOUCH theology. If it puts it down, it touches it. His lies were exposed.

Originally Posted by marc9000

The argument is that if evolutionists were completely honest, Haeckel’s fraud should have been completely abandoned, not occasionally sneaked through students textbooks to attempt to make a stronger case for evolution than actually exists.

Are we confusing current drawings made from photos with Haeckel's work? Sounds like it. Furthermore, creationists seem to completely ignore that Haeckel's ideas weren't that far off. Campbell and Reece right NOW have pictures that show essentially the same argument that Haeckel was trying to make in his drawings. Haeckel drew more then existed. That doesn't make his idea fundamentally wrong. And Haeckel did it for personal gain.

If evolutionists are even slightly dishonest like that, what would stop them from creating ~pretend Christians~ to help them make their case against creation? In your opening post, you gave us a 135 page link of Bryan Rehm’s testimony, with no specifics of where the relevant parts of the testimony are. Were you hoping that no one would actually check it? No one has through 33 posts, maybe it’s about time for it.

Please, look through it. That post was purely about how creationist label anyone who disagrees with them atheists. You won't find any evidence to suggest that Mr. Rehm is in fact an atheist.

Why “don’t they know him”? If they all share the same cozy little neighborhood, and that closeness is largely what makes him so uncomfortable, why don’t they know of his heavy church affiliation?

Do you know everyone in your town? Do you even know over a 1,000 people? Furthermore, you are limiting your argument to those who live in that town. The court case as well as the surrounding controversy involved far more people then those who lived in it. Both sides brought in experts and all walks of life discussed the case before it went to trial. Do you know every blogger in the world?

Doesn’t touch it? He doesn’t know that science is used as a weapon against theology? That’s a pretty heavy touch.

Not everyone is as cynical as you are.

There is no supernatural component to his religion?

No. Read the whole thing. His religion does not include that a supernatural being designed life as we see it.

He runs vacation Bible school, and doesn’t believe in a supernatural component.

No. He doesn't believe in a supernatural component on design.

Now, dropping down to the bottom of page 116, we have a little bit from his testimony to the other attorney; (‘Q’ for attorney, ‘A’ for Rehm)

He used a videotape in his classroom that discussed creationism, yet he’s a plantif in a lawsuit to keep creationism and ID OUT of the science classroom?

The lawsuit is to keep intelligent design out. It does not stop creationism.

How does this make sense? It makes sense in only one way, that his videotape was a PUT-DOWN of creationism. He testified above that science DID NOT TOUCH theology. If it puts it down, it touches it. His lies were exposed.

Perhaps, but that depends what he means by theology. Furthermore, he never specified whose theology science was going to talk about.

Originally Posted by obvious_child

You made the argument that science still teaches it as fact and uses it. That ain't true.

Sure it is. And I even posted evidence of one example of it being in a school text book as of 2002. Remember child, we're dealing with claims here that were proven fraudulent around 1830. That's 278 years ago. It begs the question as to how much time do evos need to actually abandon bad info once it is outed as bad and misleading? In the case of evolutionists who struggle with character issues, it seems that even 278 years isn't enough time for them to do the right thing.

And here's the larger issue that makes your absolute statement above untrue, or at least unproven. I posted a link as evidence that as of 2002, this 278 year fraud is still being published in high school text books. You posted one link in response that showed photos rather than drawings being used in A single text book edition. How does your single example prove that no other texts still are publishing this fraudulent info as examples of the evolutionary process we all allegedly go through as we are formed in the womb?

[snip] off topic and irrelevant minutia

Oh Boy. You clearly haven't compared textbooks lately. Go buy Campbell and Reese 7th edition and then compare it to the 8th. And then report.

And I'm sure that you haven't looked at or compared every textbook being published today either child. And that is proven by you telling me to look at a single edition as if that is universal proof which makes your point. The relevant point which you seem to be in denial of and in full excuse mode over is that it has been 278 years since Haeckel was exposed as the fraud he was, yet this info has still been found in textbooks as recently as 2002 and possibly is still being used in books we don't know about in 08. So I say again, since you deleted it from your prior post, you know, the meat of the point I was making?

Despite the fact that Haeckel’s embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as "proof" of Darwin’s theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the world’s staunchest proponent of Darwin’s great myth. He wrote:
Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology ….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.

Originally Posted by Archangel

blah blah blah blah repeating the the same claim over and over again without
addressing the points showing where the claim is incorrect

Have you actually read anything written to you? Somehow, i don't think so. I find that far far more dishonest than anything you claim the 'evolutionists' do.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why don't you read the points that have been brought up, and actually address them, rather than repeating your original claim over and over ad infinitum, and without understanding.

Originally Posted by trebor

Have you actually read anything written to you? Somehow, i don't think so. I find that far far more dishonest than anything you claim the 'evolutionists' do.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why don't you read the points that have been brought up, and actually address them, rather than repeating your original claim over and over ad infinitum, and without understanding.

Hey trebor, go to the post directly above this one; post # 37, and click on the little blue arrow by my name. That should take you to the original post where I made that statement, right? Strangely enough, it doesn't take you anywhere at all. So my question is, who made that statement and how did it get attributed to me?

After looking through every post on this thread, I couldn't find that quoted statement anywhere, by me or anyone else either. So care to link to where I said it on this thread, cuz I can't find it.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Hey trebor, go to the post directly above this one; post # 37, and click on the little blue arrow by my name. That should take you to the original post where I made that statement, right? Strangely enough, it doesn't take you anywhere at all. So my question is, who made that statement and how did it get attributed to me?

After looking through every post on this thread, I couldn't find that quoted statement anywhere, by me or anyone else either. So care to link to where I said it on this thread, cuz I can't find it.

I basically paraphrased your entire cut/paste, which basically boiled down to absolutely nothing. If someone wants to see what you originally cut/paste, they can click on that little blue arrow.

However, it was extremely long, and highly ignorant.

Perhaps we could at least get Archangel to recognize that 2008 - 1830 = 178, not 278? One time is a typo, but he repeats the incorrect value several times...

Regarding the Haeckel "controversy": The 2002 Raven and Johnson text does indeed include Haeckel drawings, but it is for historical purposes to lead into aspects of Haeckel's work that are true. Notably, it explicitly states that we now know that part of Haeckel's ideas weren't true. Discovery.org includes a scan of the "offending" illustration from Raven and Johnson 2002. I don't have the text, but even from their scan I can read the following snippet, which makes Raven and Johnson's point quite clear:

"This hypothesis, proposed in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the "biogenic law." It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) inolves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of the vertebrate's ancestors." Note: the bolding is mine, but the italics are from the original.

What on Earth is wrong with this? It is excellent pedagogy.

Take a look at PZ Myer's blog comments on the use of these diagrams in biology textbooks:

Shoot, I can't include links yet... do a search on "textbooks_and_haeckel_again.php"

Originally Posted by Archangel

Sure it is. And I even posted evidence of one example of it being in a school text book as of 2002. Remember child, we're dealing with claims here that were proven fraudulent around 1830. That's 278 years ago. It begs the question as to how much time do evos need to actually abandon bad info once it is outed as bad and misleading? In the case of evolutionists who struggle with character issues, it seems that even 278 years isn't enough time for them to do the right thing.

And here's the larger issue that makes your absolute statement above untrue, or at least unproven. I posted a link as evidence that as of 2002, this 278 year fraud is still being published in high school text books. You posted one link in response that showed photos rather than drawings being used in A single text book edition. How does your single example prove that no other texts still are publishing this fraudulent info as examples of the evolutionary process we all allegedly go through as we are formed in the womb?

[snip] off topic and irrelevant minutia

And I'm sure that you haven't looked at or compared every textbook being published today either child. And that is proven by you telling me to look at a single edition as if that is universal proof which makes your point. The relevant point which you seem to be in denial of and in full excuse mode over is that it has been 278 years since Haeckel was exposed as the fraud he was, yet this info has still been found in textbooks as recently as 2002 and possibly is still being used in books we don't know about in 08. So I say again, since you deleted it from your prior post, you know, the meat of the point I was making?

Despite the fact that Haeckel’s embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as "proof" of Darwin’s theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the world’s staunchest proponent of Darwin’s great myth. He wrote:
Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology ….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.

Originally Posted by trebor

I basically paraphrased your entire cut/paste, which basically boiled down to absolutely nothing. If someone wants to see what you originally cut/paste, they can click on that little blue arrow.

However, it was extremely long, and highly ignorant.

When you click on the arrow, it takes you to post 36. Here:

Originally Posted by obvious_child

You made the argument that science still teaches it as fact and uses it. That ain't true.

Sure it is. And I even posted evidence of one example of it being in a school text book as of 2002. Remember child, we're dealing with claims here that were proven fraudulent around 1830. That's 278 years ago. It begs the question as to how much time do evos need to actually abandon bad info once it is outed as bad and misleading? In the case of evolutionists who struggle with character issues, it seems that even 278 years isn't enough time for them to do the right thing.

And here's the larger issue that makes your absolute statement above untrue, or at least unproven. I posted a link as evidence that as of 2002, this 278 year fraud is still being published in high school text books. You posted one link in response that showed photos rather than drawings being used in A single text book edition. How does your single example prove that no other texts still are publishing this fraudulent info as examples of the evolutionary process we all allegedly go through as we are formed in the womb?

[snip] off topic and irrelevant minutia

Oh Boy. You clearly haven't compared textbooks lately. Go buy Campbell and Reese 7th edition and then compare it to the 8th. And then report.

And I'm sure that you haven't looked at or compared every textbook being published today either child. And that is proven by you telling me to look at a single edition as if that is universal proof which makes your point. The relevant point which you seem to be in denial of and in full excuse mode over is that it has been 278 years since Haeckel was exposed as the fraud he was, yet this info has still been found in textbooks as recently as 2002 and possibly is still being used in books we don't know about in 08. So I say again, since you deleted it from your prior post, you know, the meat of the point I was making?

Despite the fact that Haeckel’s embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as "proof" of Darwin’s theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the world’s staunchest proponent of Darwin’s great myth. He wrote:
Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology ….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.

How is that post a complete cut and paste? Only the bolded paragraph at the bottom which child completely ignored in my prior post was recopied since it was the meat of the argument I was making, which he never responded to at all.

Originally Posted by tester

Perhaps we could at least get Archangel to recognize that 2008 - 1830 = 178, not 278? One time is a typo, but he repeats the incorrect value several times...

Agreed, my error. But are you actually implying that for an obvious fraud to continue to be perpetrated in science textbooks for 178 years, rather than 278 years to be some victory on your part? Or acceptable, or valid? This whole premise should have been erased from evolutionist consideration as a valid concept all together since it has been shown to be absolutely wrong.

Regarding the Haeckel "controversy": The 2002 Raven and Johnson text does indeed include Haeckel drawings, but it is for historical purposes to lead into aspects of Haeckel's work that are true. Notably, it explicitly states that we now know that part of Haeckel's ideas weren't true. Discovery.org includes a scan of the "offending" illustration from Raven and Johnson 2002. I don't have the text, but even from their scan I can read the following snippet, which makes Raven and Johnson's point quite clear:

"This hypothesis, proposed in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel, is referred to as the "biogenic law." It is usually stated as an aphorism: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; that is, embryological development (ontogeny) inolves the same progression of changes that have occurred during evolution (phylogeny). However, the biogenic law is not literally true when stated in this way because embryonic stages are not reflections of adult ancestors. Instead, the embryonic stages of a particular vertebrate often reflect the embryonic stages of the vertebrate's ancestors." Note: the bolding is mine, but the italics are from the original.

What on Earth is wrong with this? It is excellent pedagogy.

Take a look at PZ Myer's blog comments on the use of these diagrams in biology textbooks:

Shoot, I can't include links yet... do a search on "textbooks_and_haeckel_again.php"

And here, you still seem to be defending Haeckels fraud as a valid scientific model even though it has been rejected as wrong almost since it was first published. Incredible. Absolutely incredible. You folks will defend anything rather than just admit it does your position no good at all to support such a misleading interpretation as Haeckel proposed.

No. I pointed it out because it demonstrates how careless you are when it comes to interpreting, processing and disseminating information.

Frankly, I'm baffled that you don't understand the difference between showing the historical progression of ideas and stating outdated information as fact. I see nothing else to clarify; I am content to have readers decide for themselves based on information already presented.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Agreed, my error. But are you actually implying that for an obvious fraud to continue to be perpetrated in science textbooks for 178 years, rather than 278 years to be some victory on your part?

Agreed, my error. But are you actually implying that for an obvious fraud to continue to be perpetrated in science textbooks for 178 years, rather than 278 years to be some victory on your part? Or acceptable, or valid? This whole premise should have been erased from evolutionist consideration as a valid concept all together since it has been shown to be absolutely wrong.

Add to that that Haeckel was born in 1834 and didn't make his drawings until 1874. (I can't find the original year in which the drawings (not the theory) were refuted, or even who refuted them in the first place... got any links, Archie?) and the gap shrinks again to an absolute maximum of 127 years... I agree, however, that this is still poor reporting by the science textbooks if all you have told us is true.

However... how true is it? The science textbooks do not promote the same theory as Haeckel did, instead they promote a different theory - that features/structures tend to develop on a foetus in the order that they evolved in. This process of development is an observed fact - and if new observations look similar to Haeckel's faked drawings, then the fact that his hoaxes looked similar to reality is not a reason to stop using some real drawings that happen to look like his fakes.

Finally, I'd say that the whole thing is as much an argument against evolution as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, or any of the other fakes that have been dealt with in this thread. Using what is taught to schoolchildren to debunk the original theory is simply not logical - firstly, it ignores the fact that the taught version may well be be oversimplified to the extreme and secondly, if it is completely factually incorrect then that's merely bad teaching, not bad science.

Originally Posted by tester

No. I pointed it out because it demonstrates how careless you are when it comes to interpreting, processing and disseminating information.

Frankly, I'm baffled that you don't understand the difference between showing the historical progression of ideas and stating outdated information as fact. I see nothing else to clarify; I am content to have readers decide for themselves based on information already presented.

All it demonstrates is that I made a mistake tester. And this issue isn't about the difference between showing the historical progression of ideas and stating outdated information as fact at all. It's about evolutionists continuing to allow false information to continue to be published in textbooks for students consumption when they have known it was false pretty much from the beginning. That is the relevant issue. It shows that they are more concerned with promoting their agenda than honestly protecting the truth and methodology which other legitimate sciences live and breathe by.

Look at the vehemence of the attacks the evolution community powers that be focussed on the movie EXPELLED. And all that movie did in effect was interview legitimate scientists who dared to speak about flaws, errors, contradictions and misinformation they saw in the course of being respected evolution community insiders. Every one of those honest scientists who only spoke the truth effectively received the equivalent of being run out of town on a rail regarding how their careers were destroyed by pressure from that community.

I think it was Peeling who stated in a debate that all the evolution community does is make discoveries and put them out there for public consumption and let people kick them around, no matter where it leads to. But that isn't true at all with this pseudo science of evolution, since anyone who dares to speak out against evolution in a meaningful and specific way will most assuredly be excoriated and attacked to the point of destroying their career.
An honest science which is truly seeking the truth needn't intimidate and threaten scientists as it squelches any and all opposition with heavy handed tactics. It will welcome questions and criticisms which keep it honest and always striving for the best and most accurate information.

The evolution defenders on this forum constantly bring up the peer review process and excoriate Creationism/ID because it doesn't go through that process, while SO MUCH of evolutions discoveries have gone through that process. What they fail to admit, or are just not smart enough to realize is that these papers are reviewed in most cases by the very people who financed the project being reviewed. In any case though, it was performed by pro evolution advocates who have a personal stake in forwarding this very flawed science. So the system is rigged and the fix is in when validating whatever info is submitted, as long as it fits with the overall scheme which evo science is promoting.