Dissecting one of Tolkien's quotes

[2PhiloVoid]

Teaching that it was correct?

Can you name the textbooks that indicated this?

Right - His rejected it pretty much when it was originally published.

Right.

So what do you think about Randy misrepresenting his textbook as I demonstrated? Regarding intellectual honesty, why do you suppose so many creationists engage in so much intellectual DIShonesty? Plagiarism, repetition of false claims,misrepresentation, etc.

While I almost couldn't care less about the extent to which Haeckel's drawings have been used since evolution draws upon a vast number of scientific resources other than Haeckel's ideas, here are some sources regarding the past usage of Haeckel's drawings in some biology textbooks. From what I can tell, much of the possible 'miscontruel' of Haeckel ended in the 1990s or just shortly into the 2000s

***************************************
Analyses of various biology textbooks

1) http://www.discovery.org/a/3935/

2) Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2008). Seeing the wood for the trees: an analysis of evolutionary diagrams in biology textbooks. BioScience, 58(10), 976-987.

3) Luskin, C. Biology Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution.

4) Huang, H. F. (2017). Haeckel's Embryos: Images, Evolution, and Fraud. [no direct link]
****************************************
Criticism of the above type of analyses

5) Haeckel, E. Haeckel’S Embryos.

6) Gishlick, A. D. (2002). Icons of evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong. The Quarterly Review of Biology.

7) Pickett, K. M., Wenzel, J. W., & Rissing, S. W. (2005). Iconoclasts of evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells & the ontogeny of a fraud. The American Biology Teacher, 67(5), 275-282. [no direct link]

 

[tas8831]

While I almost couldn't care less about the extent to which Haeckel's drawings have been used since evolution draws upon a vast number of scientific resources other than Haeckel's ideas, here are some sources regarding the past usage of Haeckel's drawings in some biology textbooks. From what I can tell, much of the possible 'miscontruel' of Haeckel ended in the 1990s or just shortly into the 2000s

***************************************
Analyses of various biology textbooks

1) http://www.discovery.org/a/3935/

2) Catley, K. M., & Novick, L. R. (2008). Seeing the wood for the trees: an analysis of evolutionary diagrams in biology textbooks. BioScience, 58(10), 976-987.

3) Luskin, C. Biology Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution.

4) Huang, H. F. (2017). Haeckel's Embryos: Images, Evolution, and Fraud. [no direct link]
****************************************
Criticism of the above type of analyses

5) Haeckel, E. Haeckel’S Embryos.

6) Gishlick, A. D. (2002). Icons of evolution? Why much of what Jonathan Wells writes about evolution is wrong. The Quarterly Review of Biology.

7) Pickett, K. M., Wenzel, J. W., & Rissing, S. W. (2005). Iconoclasts of evolution: Haeckel, Behe, Wells & the ontogeny of a fraud. The American Biology Teacher, 67(5), 275-282. [no direct link]

Thanks.

Of note, we can find yet another clear cut example of Wells outright lying to his target audience:

"In the introduction to Icons, Wells states
that he first became aware of the problems
in evolutionary theory when he was “fin-
ishing his Ph.D. in cell and developmental
biology” (Wells, 2000:xi). He claims that he
knew that the drawings of embryos presented
in textbooks were false because he was a
developmental biologist. Shortly thereafter, he
claims, his observation was confirmed by
other scientists. Before that seminal event, he
says, “I believed almost everything I read in
my textbooks” (Wells, 2000:xi). This state-
ment is inconsistent with other claims of Wells’s. According to statements made by Wells in a sermon on a Unification Church website (http://www.tparents.org/library/unifi-
cation/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm), he went to
graduate school with the specific intent of
attacking evolution: “Father’s words, my stud-
ies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism” and
he believed that its weakest point was devel-
opmental biology."​

Wells was not convinced that 'Darwin was wrong' by his studies, he went in "knowing" Darwin was wrong because Father Moon indoctrinated him to believe as much.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks.

Of note, we can find yet another clear cut example of Wells outright lying to his target audience:

"In the introduction to Icons, Wells states
that he first became aware of the problems
in evolutionary theory when he was “fin-
ishing his Ph.D. in cell and developmental
biology” (Wells, 2000:xi). He claims that he
knew that the drawings of embryos presented
in textbooks were false because he was a
developmental biologist. Shortly thereafter, he
claims, his observation was confirmed by
other scientists. Before that seminal event, he
says, “I believed almost everything I read in
my textbooks” (Wells, 2000:xi). This state-
ment is inconsistent with other claims of Wells’s. According to statements made by Wells in a sermon on a Unification Church website (http://www.tparents.org/library/unifi-
cation/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm), he went to
graduate school with the specific intent of
attacking evolution: “Father’s words, my stud-
ies, and my prayers convinced me that I should
devote my life to destroying Darwinism” and
he believed that its weakest point was devel-
opmental biology."​

Wells was not convinced that 'Darwin was wrong; by his studies, he went in "knowing" Darwin was wrong because Father Moon indoctrinated him to believe as much.

Wells is a Moonie, so, what can I say?