<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Most of those involved in the Creation\/Evolution conflict are aware of such outright frauds as the Piltdown Man<\/em><\/strong> of Sussex, England. From its discovery in 1912 by Charles Dawson until its factual public exposure in 1953, essentially the entire secular paleontology community accepted this fossil as an intermediate between Ape and Man. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written on its technical place in the lineage of Man (designated Eoanthropus dawsoni<\/em>, \u201cDawn Man<\/em><\/strong>\u201d); and degrees were awarded from major universities around the world. One of the few scholars who saw through its fabrication early-on was the Oxford scholar Earnest Tolbert (Bull) Adams from Glen Rose, Texas. Upon seeing the famous fossil first-hand, he wrote home to his wife Mable that it was a fake<\/em><\/strong>. History later proved him to be correct. But the evolutionary community had accepted Piltdown and other dubious artifacts as concrete evidence to the point that evolution has now become so entrenched as to require no real evidence at all.<\/em><\/strong> Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins<\/em><\/strong> famously announced: \u201cWe don\u2019t need evidence [for evolution]. We know it to be true.\u201d[1]<\/a> There is a long list of \u201caltered\u201d or \u201cmanipulated\u201d information<\/em><\/strong>, but Haeckel\u2019s Embryos<\/em><\/strong> illustrate the point very well:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In his The Origin of Species<\/em> (Chapter XIV), Darwin wrote that \u201cthe leading facts in embryology, which are seen as second to none in importance<\/em><\/strong>\u201d should be considered \u201cby far the strongest single class of facts<\/em><\/strong> in favor of\u201d his hypothesis. Darwin was captivated by Haeckel\u2019s drawings of select vertebrate classes, particularly the astounding similarity<\/em><\/strong> that he depicted among their early embryonic stages<\/em><\/strong>, and what Haeckel called \u201cthe biogenetic law<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (or \u201crecapitulation theory\u201d). This simply means that embryonic growth of the fetus within the womb rapidly repeats the entire evolutionary history<\/em><\/strong> of the species prior to birth. But what we really see is -<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Prior to Darwin\u2019s The Origin of Species<\/em> (1859), Europe\u2019s famous embryologist, Karl Ernst von Baer<\/em><\/strong> (1792-1876), the discoverer of the tiny mammalian egg cell, had already disproved<\/span><\/em><\/strong> by careful empirical observation<\/em><\/strong> the evolutionary \u201claw of parallelism\u201d \u2013 the belief that embryos of \u201chigher\u201d organisms pass through the adult forms of \u201clower\u201d organisms in the course of their development. Despite von Baer\u2019s anti-evolutionary views, his evidence was manipulated<\/em><\/strong> by Haeckel and misrepresented<\/em><\/strong> by Darwin. According to Dr. Jonathan Wells \u201cVon Baer lived long enough to object to Darwin\u2019s misuse of his observations, and he was a strong critic of Darwinian evolution until his death in 1876. But Darwin persisted in citing him anyway, making him look like a supporter of the very doctrine of evolutionary parallelism he explicitly rejected.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201cAn embryologist, Dr. Michael Richardson<\/em><\/strong> [St. George\u2019s Hospital Medical School], with the cooperation of biologists around the world, collected and photographed the types of embryos Haeckel supposedly drew. Dr. Richardson found that Haeckel\u2019s drawings bore<\/span><\/em><\/strong> little resemblance<\/em><\/strong><\/span> to the embryos<\/em><\/strong>. Haeckel\u2019s drawings could only have come from his imagination, which was harnessed to produce \u2018evidence\u2019 to promote the acceptance of evolution.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The astounding similarity between early stages of different vertebrate classes and orders that so captivated the interest of Charles Darwin is now known to be the result of Haeckel \u201cdoctoring\u201d his drawings<\/em><\/strong> to make them all appear more alike than the actual evidence would allow. This is readily substantiated\u2026<\/p>\n (a) Censored Samples<\/span><\/em><\/strong>: \u201cHaeckel\u2019s contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations, and charges of fraud abounded in his lifetime\u2026there is no doubt that his drawings misrepresent<\/em><\/strong> vertebrate embryos. First, he chose only those embryos<\/em><\/strong> that came closest to fitting his theory.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n (b) Deliberate Deception<\/span><\/em><\/strong>: \u201cSurprisingly, after developing quite differently in their early stages, vertebrate embryos become somewhat similar midway<\/em><\/strong> through development. It is this midway point that Haeckel chose as the \u2018first\u2019 stage for his drawings.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n (c) Designed Distortions<\/span><\/em><\/strong>: \u201c\u2026the popularizers of evolution\u2026still believe that similarities between embryos are evidence for evolution (common ancestry). But this confidence rests, consciously or unconsciously, on the woodcuts published by Haeckel<\/em><\/strong> and reproduced, in whole or in part, in many textbooks since. These drawings are widely believed to bear some resemblance to reality. But apparently no one has bothered to check.\u201d[6]<\/a> \u201cIn some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut<\/em><\/strong> to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n (d) Erroneous Exaggeration<\/span><\/em><\/strong>: \u201cNot only did Haeckel add or omit features\u2026he also fudged the scale<\/em><\/strong> to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold<\/em><\/strong> differences in size<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d[8]<\/a> \u201cRichardson and his colleagues also found that vertebrate embryos vary tremendously in size, from less than 1 millimeter to almost 10 millimeters, yet Haeckel portrayed them all as being the same size<\/span><\/em><\/strong>.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n (e) Falsified Figures<\/span><\/em><\/strong>: \u201cFinally, Richardson and his colleagues found considerable variation in the number of somites \u2013 repetitive blocks of cells on either side of the embryo\u2019s developing backbone. Although Haeckel\u2019s drawings show approximately the same number of somites in each class, actual embryos vary from 11 to more than 60<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d[10]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n YET THIS FALSIFIED INFORMATION IS STILL USED TODAY!<\/span><\/em><\/strong> \u201cThe Biogenetic law [Haeckel\u2019s Drawings] has become so deeply rooted in biological thought<\/em><\/strong> that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous scholars.\u201d[11]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Richard Dawkins, Washington University Seminar: \u201cMaking Sense of Creation and Evolution<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution<\/em>, 2000, p.86<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Weiland, The Revised & Expanded Answers Book<\/em>, 1900, p.120<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution<\/em>, 2000, p. 91<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Ibid. p, 98<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Ham, Sarfati, and Weiland, op cit.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Wells, op cit.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Science<\/em>, vol. 277, 9\/5\/97<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Wells, op cit, p. 92<\/p>\nI.\u00a0 MANIPULATIVE MIS-REPRESENTATION<\/h2>\n
II.\u00a0 PURPOSEFUL PROPAGANDA<\/h2>\n
III. ILLEGITIMATE ILLUSTRATIONS<\/h2>\n