Can anyone verify if Haeckel drawings were used to justify court decision on abortion?

[Monte_RCMS]

“Many smaller, more recent events like the Columbine High School killing were also committed in the name of evolution. Perhaps the most drastic example is abortion: The Supreme Court made a decision that a human fetus was not a baby before 5 months. The ruling was based on Haeckel’s drawings of fetuses in the later first stage of development. He showed that all vertebrates progress from amphibian stages to whatever their final forms would be. He lied. He was convicted of fraud by his own university, but his teachings are still in college text books today. He committed the crime to help provide evidence for evolution, by his own admission. Evolution is probably responsible for more death and suffering than any other single thing on this planet, yet not one benefit or development has been achieved from it’s study.”

I was doing some internet research on death statistics, and went off onto a tangent and stumbled on this.

Before I got too distracted and too far afield, I thought I would post it here just to see if anyone had any familiarity with it.

Thanks.

 

[rossum]

“Many smaller, more recent events like the Columbine High School killing were also committed in the name of evolution. Perhaps the most drastic example is abortion: The Supreme Court made a decision that a human fetus was not a baby before 5 months. The ruling was based on Haeckel’s drawings of fetuses in the later first stage of development. He showed that all vertebrates progress from amphibian stages to whatever their final forms would be. He lied. He was convicted of fraud by his own university, but his teachings are still in college text books today. He committed the crime to help provide evidence for evolution, by his own admission. Evolution is probably responsible for more death and suffering than any other single thing on this planet, yet not one benefit or development has been achieved from it’s study.”

I was doing some internet research on death statistics, and went off onto a tangent and stumbled on this.

Before I got too distracted and too far afield, I thought I would post it here just to see if anyone had any familiarity with it.

Thanks.

Haeckel was living in the 19th century. His drawings have been replaced long since by more accurate drawings and by photographs. The only place you will see his drawings in modern science textbooks now is in a short section explaining how he was wrong.

Here are Haeckel’s original drawings from 1874:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Source: Wells and Haeckel’s Embryos.

Haeckel was German, so the captions on the drawings are also in German. If drawings are not captioned in German they are unlikely to be Haeckel’s drawings.

There is a tendency among some people to call all drawings of any vertebrate embryo “Haeckel’s drawings”. This is incorrect, the great majority of such drawings are not by Haeckel and are more accurate.

rossum

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Thanks.

Appreciate it.

 

[svid]

“Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”? I was taught that in public school in the 70’s. A nicer school, too, with newer textbooks and equipment.

 

[stephe1987]

I don’t know if that’s true… I heard from a number of Ph.D scientists that those drawings are still used as if true in books today in order to use as “proof” that evolution is true. I hope that most books have taken those out, but then again, the textbooks still write about the Miller experiment and that has also been disproven many years ago as well.

 

[rossum]

I heard from a number of Ph.D scientists that those drawings are still used as if true in books today in order to use as “proof” that evolution is true.

You were lied to. No modern textbook uses 19th century drawings. They use modern drawings or else photographs. Do you have evidence that the modern drawings contain the same errors that Haeckel’s drawings contained?

I hope that most books have taken those out, but then again, the textbooks still write about the Miller experiment and that has also been disproven many years ago as well.

Again, your creationist sources are lying to you. The results of the Miller-Urey experiment are still valid. Also valid are the results of the many subsequent repetitions of that experiment with varying atmospheric compositions. Any reducing or neutral atmosphere will result in the production of simple organic compounds. Did your creationist source mention all those repetitions and variations of the Miller-Urey experiment? No, I didn’t think that they did. As I said, they were lying to you.

Don’t believe people who lie to you.

rossum