Did you get the version of the course that showed how Ernst Haeckel’s theory that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was flawed and that the famous drawings are not accurate? There may still be textbooks with those drawings being used in classes.
This has been a favorite of creationists looking for a defence from the Theory of Evolution. They find no shame in attacking a discredited 140 year old idea as if it were still considered valid. Perhaps it’s their own adherence to ancient texts that makes it seem worth attacking.
Curious that Haeckel’s problem was that he thought up the theory and then adjusted his results to conform to it. This is what we see creationists doing all the time and here they are faulting someone known to have gotten it wrong while using their methodology.
Yes, JohnnieCanuck, I did take that version. Same thing concerning Piltdown Man. It is science that discovers frauds within its ranks.
That is the very reason science can be trusted. Fundamentalists always miss that point. Religion doesn’t appreciate critical review. If it did, it would self destruct.
–The unexamined belief is not worth believing–
Leave a Reply
Updated twice a week
NICE T-SHIRT(Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Others available, including NEW "street-safe" styles! Click the pic to see.
BRAND NEW! By popular demand - "Faith is...".
February 12th, 2008 at 6:44 am
“Offoflogy recapitulates foolology,” as Poor Dick says.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Clever, PR. You took that course, too.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
God is on my offoflogy.
True in both senses.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Did you get the version of the course that showed how Ernst Haeckel’s theory that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was flawed and that the famous drawings are not accurate? There may still be textbooks with those drawings being used in classes.
This has been a favorite of creationists looking for a defence from the Theory of Evolution. They find no shame in attacking a discredited 140 year old idea as if it were still considered valid. Perhaps it’s their own adherence to ancient texts that makes it seem worth attacking.
Curious that Haeckel’s problem was that he thought up the theory and then adjusted his results to conform to it. This is what we see creationists doing all the time and here they are faulting someone known to have gotten it wrong while using their methodology.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Yes, JohnnieCanuck, I did take that version. Same thing concerning Piltdown Man. It is science that discovers frauds within its ranks.
That is the very reason science can be trusted. Fundamentalists always miss that point. Religion doesn’t appreciate critical review. If it did, it would self destruct.
–The unexamined belief is not worth believing–