"When Darwin presented a paper to the Linnaean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism" (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, Evolution from Space, p. 159).
Some of the classic evidences given in support of the "fact" of evolution are embarrassingly flawed. Yet they continue to be displayed as "proofs" for evolution. [The word "proofs" is set off because in science, this is a misuse of the word, yet that is what must occur for evolution to be a "fact."]
Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those who allow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They must be thinking that ...
To their shame, many scientists and educators do not correct the falsehoods or fallacies presented to students in textbooks. Can a theory be considered legitimate if it must be protected by deceit?
The alleged missing links and evidences for evolution that are paraded before the public and unsuspecting students are often fraudulent claims. The remainder of the evidences are disputable and inconclusive interpretations or irrelevant to the debate.
The persistence of fraudulent evidence and one-sided presentations of disputable claims in textbooks to "prove" evolution reveals the extreme bias of evolutionists and their control of the educational and scientific communities. Having concluded that evolution is a fact, the evidence is obviously insignificant! The end apparently justifies whatever means is necessary to convince others to believe in evolution.
Check out your local school textbooks to see if students are being deceived by fraudulent examples and claims.
In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism, German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel, concluded that evolutionary the stages of species from single cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated in embryological development (ontogeny) of each species. He surmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree, human embryos should pass through the stages of the lower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. So convinced that he was right, he self-proclaimed the "Biogenetic Law": Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. However, it was neither a law nor correct. It was fraud.
Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true.
Haeckel falsified his drawings to depict the appearance of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.
Above: Left to right: fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, human.
Below: Comparison of Haeckel’s drawings with photos of the real shapes of each organism. (image from http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/embryo4.jpg, accessed 10/24/04)
German scientist, Wilhelm His “… accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates …” (Stephen Jay Gould, 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p. 430).
“This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.” (Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997, p. 14).
“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity” (Bowden, Malcolm, 1977, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).
"To support his case [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.
During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered his drawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128).
"The law of biogenesis has to use cheating tricks in order to fit data to the theory" (G. Rager, "Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis," in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum 79 (1986), pp. 451-452. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).
"Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly….There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs" (L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," in Archiv fur Anthropologie (1868) p. 301-302. As quoted by http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm, accessed 10/24/04).
Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote: “Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny." (G.G. Simpson and W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1965), p. 241).
As early as 1932, evolutionist H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago said that Haeckel’s works “did more harm than good to Darwinism” (Newman, H.H., 1932, 3rd edition, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 30).
"This generalization was originally called the biogenic law by Haeckel, and is often stated as `ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.' This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (Paul R. Erlich and Richard W. Holm, 1963, Process of Evolution, p. 66).
"Much research has been done in embryology since Haeckel's day, and we now know that there are all too many exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny does not reflect accurately the course of evolution" (R. H. Dott, R. L Batten Evolution of the Earth, 1971, p.86).
Some claim that Haeckel’s fraud is history. “Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties” (Keith S. Thomson, Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated, American Scientist, 76:May/June 1988, p. 273).
However, the embryonic fraud lives on. "Although Haeckel confessed…and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist" (New Scientist, 9/6/97, p.23). After seven decades, there is no excuse to continue this fraud in the books.
Why does it persist in the textbooks after so many years after being exposed as fraud? "The biogenetic law was widely accepted by biologists and served as the basis for the surge of embryological research that continues unabated to this day. Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Even today both subtle and overt uses of the biogenetic law are frequently encountered in the general biological literature as well as in more specialized evolutionary and systematic studies” (W. Bock, "Book Review," Science, May 1969, pp. 684-685).
"It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny" (Simpson & Beck,1965, Introduction to Biology, p.273).
Persistence of Haeckel’s fraud in textbooks reveals the lack of integrity among evolutionists, the blind bias that justifies using fraudulent examples, and the control they have over social education. Such bias in science makes the teaching of evolution untrustworthy and scurrilous.
Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy of using vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concluding that an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence of previous ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded such examples in classrooms as “proof” of evolution. However, discoveries revealing organ purpose and function reveal that the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result of ignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blind bias was failure to recognize that organs without purpose were due to loss of function within the species not a remnant of ancient history.
What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in various life forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-over from more primitive forms. The human appendix is an example. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).
"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities" (Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case, p. 268).
"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).
Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument; [functionless organs] gained widespread use not because it proves anything about evolution, but because it was thought to have particular force against some varieties of creationism….
"There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion [i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically….
"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational science…. Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "Evolutionary Theory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).
Below are a couple of examples of "vestigial" organs cited as evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to have function.
Evolution myth: "The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost." Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p. 264
Fact: "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review of Biology, p. 149).
'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of a lymphoid function … There is experimental evidence as well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoid organ which acts as reservoir of antibody producing cells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981) p.175.
Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigial hind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in the Right Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to be strengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C. Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.
Some "vestigial" examples cited by evolutionists are of organs for which no purpose is known at this time. The point is that the so-called vestigial organs are considered evidence for evolution only if one has a bias for evolution. A question to ask your teacher is: "How is it determined that a vestigial organ is a remnant of evolutionary ancestry rather than 1) an organ of unknown function at this time or 2) an organ of lost function within the same species?"
"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394.
"Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology" (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, The Process of Evolution, p. 66).
"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others." (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994,p. 195)
Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim? (Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1946), p.72.