hall of shame for evolution fraud and deceit

12/10/13 3:15 PMHall of Shame for Evolution Fraud and Deceit

of 14http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame.htm

Hall of Shame for Evolution Fraud andDeceit

Evolution Hall of Shame

"When Darwin presented a paper to the LinnaeanSociety in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublinremarked, `All that was new was false, and what wastrue was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdicton the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism" (Fred Hoyleand N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, Evolutionfrom Space, p. 159).

Some of the classic evidences given in support of the "fact"of evolution are embarrassingly flawed. Yet they continueto be displayed as "proofs" for evolution. [The word"proofs" is set off because in science, this is a misuse of theword, yet that is what must occur for evolution to be a"fact."]

Three things can be alleged about the thinking of those whoallow such flagrant disregard for honest science. They mustbe thinking that ...

1) evolution is a fact regardless of the evidence,



2) this is the best evidence evolution has to offer,

3) most people will not know the difference, so use it.

To their shame, many scientists and educators do notcorrect the falsehoods or fallacies presented to students intextbooks. Can a theory be considered legitimate if it mustbe protected by deceit?

The alleged missing links and evidences for evolution thatare paraded before the public and unsuspecting studentsare often fraudulent claims. The remainder of theevidences are disputable and inconclusive interpretationsor irrelevant to the debate.

The persistence of fraudulent evidence and one-sidedpresentations of disputable claims in textbooks to "prove"evolution reveals the extreme bias of evolutionists and theircontrol of the educational and scientific communities.Having concluded that evolution is a fact, the evidence isobviously insignificant! The end apparently justifieswhatever means is necessary to convince others to believein evolution.

Check out your local school textbooks to see if students arebeing deceived by fraudulent examples and claims.



Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny: Haeckel'sFraud

In 1866, guided by the bias of evolution and atheism,German embryologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel,concluded that evolutionary the stages of species fromsingle cells to humans (phylogeny) were repeated inembryological development (ontogeny) of each species. Hesurmised that, being highest on the evolutionary tree,human embryos should pass through the stages of thelower or more primitive species, namely single cell, to fish,to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to human. Soconvinced 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 “scientificlaw,” which can still be found in textbooks to convincestudents that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’sdrawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionallycreated to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believedto be true.

Haeckel falsified his drawings to depict the appearance ofontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.

Above: Left to right: fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig,cow, rabbit, human.

Below: Comparison of Haeckel’s drawings with photos ofthe real shapes of each organism. (image fromhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/images/embryo4.jpg,accessed 10/24/04)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/embryo4.jpg



German scientist, Wilhelm His “… accused Haeckel ofshocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture severaltimes to show the similarity among vertebrates at earlyembryonic stages in several plates …” (Stephen Jay Gould,1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, p. 430).

“This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’sshocking to find that somebody one thought was a greatscientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry …What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo andcopy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and allthe others looked the same at the same stage ofdevelopment. They don’t … These are fakes.” (NigelHawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997, p. 14).

“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose



knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some ofhis evidence. He not only altered his illustrations ofembryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo threetimes, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and thethird 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 auniversity court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentageof his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merelyfilling in and reconstructing the missing links when theevidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly thathundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under thesame charge."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution(1984), p. 120.

During the trial, Haeckel confessed that he had altered hisdrawings, but excused himself by saying: “I should feelutterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, wereit not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lieunder the same charge. The great majority of allmorphological, anatomical, histological, and embryologicaldiagrams 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 tofit data to the theory" (G. Rager, "Human Embryology andthe Law of Biogenesis," in Rivista di Biologia (BiologyForum 79 (1986), pp. 451-452. As quoted byhttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm,accessed 10/24/04).

"Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for thescientific layman to follow, and scientific andscholarly….There is considerable manufacturing ofscientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has beenvery careful not to let the reader become aware of this stateof affairs" (L. Rutimeyer, "Referate," in Archiv furAnthropologie (1868) p. 301-302. As quoted byhttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm,accessed 10/24/04).

Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote:“Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. Itis now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeatphylogeny." (G.G. Simpson and W. Beck, An Introduction

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec03.htm



to Biology (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1965), p.241).

As early as 1932, evolutionist H.H. Newman of theUniversity of Chicago said that Haeckel’s works “did moreharm than good to Darwinism” (Newman, H.H., 1932, 3rdedition, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, p. 30).

"This generalization was originally called the biogenic lawby Haeckel, and is often stated as `ontogeny recapitulatesphylogeny.' This crude interpretation of embryologicalsequences will not stand close examination, however. Itsshortcomings have been almost universally pointed out bymodern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place inbiological mythology" (Paul R. Erlich and Richard W.Holm, 1963, Process of Evolution, p. 66).

"Much research has been done in embryology sinceHaeckel's day, and we now know that there are all toomany exceptions to this analogy, and that ontogeny doesnot 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 thebiogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally



exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic ofserious theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties”(Keith S. Thomson, Ontogeny and PhylogenyRecapitulated, American Scientist, 76:May/June 1988, p.273).

However, the embryonic fraud lives on. "Although Haeckelconfessed…and was convicted of fraud at the University ofJena, the drawings persist" (New Scientist, 9/6/97, p.23).After seven decades, there is no excuse to continue thisfraud in the books.

Why does it persist in the textbooks after so many yearsafter being exposed as fraud? "The biogenetic law waswidely accepted by biologists and served as the basis for thesurge of embryological research that continues unabated tothis day. Moreover, the biogenetic law has become sodeeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot beweeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to bewrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Even today bothsubtle and overt uses of the biogenetic law are frequentlyencountered in the general biological literature as well as inmore specialized evolutionary and systematic studies” (W.Bock, "Book Review," Science, May 1969, pp. 684-685).



"It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeatphylogeny" (Simpson & Beck,1965, Introduction to Biology, p.273).

Persistence of Haeckel’s fraud in textbooks reveals the lackof integrity among evolutionists, the blind bias that justifiesusing fraudulent examples, and the control they have oversocial education. Such bias in science makes the teaching ofevolution untrustworthy and scurrilous.

Vestigial Organs

Blind evolutionary bias is responsible for the fallacy ofusing vestigial organ evidence for evolution. Concludingthat an organ with no apparent purpose was evidence ofprevious ancestral history, evolutionists have paraded suchexamples in classrooms as “proof” of evolution. However,discoveries revealing organ purpose and function revealthat the apparent non-purpose of organs was the result ofignorance of its purpose. Another oversight caused by blindbias was failure to recognize that organs without purposewere due to loss of function within the species not aremnant of ancient history.

What are vestigial organs? “Elements appearing in variouslife forms which, although often quite underdeveloped, are



no longer needed or functional and represent a carry-overfrom more primitive forms. The human appendix is anexample. (Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, FifthEdition, edited by Douglas M. Considine, page 2281).

"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to makeof a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities"(Horatio Hackett Newman, 1990, quoted in The World’sMost Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case,p. 268).

"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known tofulfill important functions” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946ed., Vo1. 8, p. 926).

Evolutionist Scadding wrote: "I suspect that this argument;[functionless organs] gained widespread use not because itproves anything about evolution, but because it wasthought to have particular force against some varieties ofcreationism….

"There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion[i.e., the organ has no function) can be arrived atscientifically. That is, one can not prove that somethingdoes not exist . . since of course if it does not exist one



cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing aboutit scientifically….

"Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negativeresults, is not valid scientifically, and has no place inobservational science…. Since it is not possible tounambiguously identify useless structures, and since thestructure of the argument is not scientifically valid, Iconclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidencefor the theory of evolution" (S. Scadding, "EvolutionaryTheory," quoted in CRSQ. December 1982, p. 190).

Below are a couple of examples of "vestigial" organs citedas evidence for evolution, but have been discovered to havefunction.

Appendix:

Evolution myth: "The vermiform appendage—inwhich some recent medical writers have vainlyendeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunkenremainder of a large and normal intestine of a remoteancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even ifit were found to have a certain use in the human body.Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into asecondary use when their original function has been



lost." Joseph McCabe, 1912, The Story of Evolution, p.264

Fact: "There is no longer any justification forregarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigialstructure” (William Straus, 1947, Quarterly Review ofBiology, p. 149).

'Anatomically the appendix shows evidence of alymphoid function … There is experimental evidenceas well that the vermiform appendix is a lymphoidorgan which acts as reservoir of antibody producingcells.' "Do 'Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence forEvolution?" Evolutionary Theory - Vol. 5 (May 1981)p.175.

Leg bones in whales: "Evolutionists often point to vestigialhind legs near the pelvis. But these are found only in theRight Whale. and upon closer inspection turn out to bestrengthening bones to the genital wall." —John C.Whitcomb, Early Earth (1988), p. 84.

Some "vestigial" examples cited by evolutionists are oforgans for which no purpose is known at this time. Thepoint is that the so-called vestigial organs are consideredevidence for evolution only if one has a bias for evolution. A

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html#McCabe1912%23McCabe1912



question to ask your teacher is: "How is it determined thata vestigial organ is a remnant of evolutionary ancestryrather than 1) an organ of unknown function at this time or2) an organ of lost function within the same species?"

"The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ waspresented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biologytextbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . Ananalysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifyingfunctionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionarytheory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ ProvideEvidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May1981), p. 394.

"Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed outby modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent placein biological mythology" (P. Erlich and R. Holm, 1963, TheProcess of Evolution, p. 66).

more evolution shame...

http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame2.htm

hall of shame for evolution fraud and deceit

Documents