"
Even if they turn out to be modern pictures and drawings, this in itself would not vindicate the school textbooks as being honest. Heackel's theory is disputed but often presented as fact, as are many other disputed theories. Now, I know what you are going to say. You are going to ask me for a list of textbooks and all the disputed theories, but I haven't got time for all that, and I haven't got a school library here in my house so you will have to find it out for yourself."
Look, if these guys are actually using Haekel drawings and presenting them as Haekel did, then I will be the first to say they are wrong and should stop.
However, there is a modern field of ontogeny and development which is a legitimate branch of science. Now, if you wish to say, as Haekel did, that the developing fetus goes through each evolutionary stage of development, then you are wrong. However, there are shared developmental steps which are legitimate and which shared light on evolution and are only explained by common descent.
One example would be the little legs and feet that whales and snake have as they are developing which are later re-absorbed. Another would be the tail of the human embryo. This, too, is usually reabsorbed though some children are born with atavistic tails and we all have the remains of a tail under our skin.
"
I wouldn't even attempt to defend any of these because I am not the person being accused of lies in any of these cases. I know what it's like to be falsely accused of telling lies, and I am sure they do too."
Well let's try a different tact. You said you found my examples "unconvincing." So let's take the first one.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/23.html#000343
A couple of guys wanted to show that when selecting rocks for K-Ar dating that is is important to select rocks that have been completely melted to rid the rock of the argon. So they selected samples from a recent volcano. SOme samples they could tell had been completely melted. So they could tell had not. They had them dated. The ones that were completely melted came back with the expected age of zreo. The ones that had not came back with the expected non-zero age.
Morris cited their work. He only mentioned the samples that were not completely melted and pointed out that they dated as old. He did not mention the other samples nor did he mention that the samples were purposely selected because they would date incorrectly. He only used it as an example that dating does not work.
First question. Do you think that he made the right conclusion based on the evidence?
Second question. If he made the right conclusion, why should he have not told the full context of the experiment? If he made the wrong conclusion, does it seem that he should have known what the guys were doing since he cited their paper?
Third question. If he made the wrong conclusion, do you think there is at least reason to think he may have been misleading on purpose or do you think it was an honest mistake?
