Now on ScienceBlogs: The Galaxy's Biggest Valentine

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

    follow me on Twitter

    « On the non-controversy of Edwards' non-bloggers | Main | The possibilities are endless »

    DI lies about Haeckel

    Category: Culture Wars
    Posted on: February 7, 2007 9:30 PM, by Josh Rosenau

    Haeckel's embryos

    The image above is Haeckel's famous drawing of embryos, a series of images which he presented to illustrate his now discredited notion of recapitulation. He fudged the details to make the whole thing look more convincing, which was undeniably a bad choice.

    This figure was reproduced by some textbooks as an interesting and historical demonstration of broad similarities between related species especially in their early development, a pattern more similar to von Baer's laws than Haeckel's ideas. Nonetheless, creationists like Jonathan Wells like to complain about teaching evolution because of this figure's dubious history. Wells does not contend that the pattern itself is invalid. He can't. And most modern textbooks have stopped using this figure, replacing it with photographs of the same embryos or with drawings from photographs.

    200702072107-1That style of illustration is shown in the second image here, copied from this post by the Discovery Institute's John West. You'll note that, despite West's claim that this is "a version of Haeckel's drawings," they are actually quite different in their details. These are clearly redrawn photographs of actual embryos, and as such do not bear the taint of any errors Haeckel made, intentionally or otherwise. Trying to smear biologist and filmmaker Randy Olson because West doesn't understand the subject is hardly honest.

    West also lies when he claims that "Haeckel’s diagrams are on their way out because of the efforts of Darwin’s critics." Stephen Jay Gould wrote a whole book addressing not just the technical issues with Haeckel's drawings, but the philosophical and biological problems with Haeckel. It wasn't critics of Darwin who spiked Haeckel's drawings, it was critics of Haeckel.

    Randy Olson's Flock of Dodos will be shown at KU's Woodruff Auditorium on February 12, at 7:45, as part of KU's Darwin Day celebration.

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    Comments

    1

    I know, I'm more than 2 years too late, but there are still discussions in the internet whether Haeckel's drawings are in modern textbooks or not.

    You'll note that, despite West's claim that this is "a version of Haeckel's drawings," they are actually quite different in their details. These are clearly redrawn photographs of actual embryos, and as such do not bear the taint of any errors Haeckel made, intentionally or otherwise.
    You said "You'll note" but I do not see much difference, and the DI says there is none. I could not find out, which details you were talking about. Of course, the Discovery Institute also never stated which particular errors of Haeckel's drawings are still in the textbooks.

    The only detail I heard about is the tail of the human embryo in the lower left corner. It is too long in Haeckel's drawing but significantly shorter in the textbook version.

    Is this one of the different details? Are there more?

    Posted by: kereng | November 11, 2009 9:34 AM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.