Share Video

Download Video: Click Here (save as ***.flv) | Real Player or any FLV Player Required

Permalink:

Embed Code:

Screatus Says:

Jul 9, 2009 - at the beginning b4 the guy even spoke u could see he was insane!!!!!

kereng5 Says:

Jul 10, 2009 - That quote was on "Guttman's Biology". But we have drawings quite similar to Haeckel's in Raven Johnson, 1999, and in Starr Taggert 2001. And that seems ok because Haeckel's drawings have never been fraudulent, just exaggerating. The best link I've found so far: tinyurl(dot)com/mb8mnr pdf by Robert J. Richards 2008.

GorgeGeorg Says:

Jul 13, 2009 - It was on FOX news. Which, lets face it, is not interested in truth.

luker4459 Says:

Jul 15, 2009 - LOL John Calvert got owned.

christo930 Says:

Jul 27, 2009 - I myself am on the political right (though I am an atheist) and I recognize fox news for what it is. It is a corporate propaganda machine, which is odd since most propaganda comes from the government. Fox news should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, left leaning news shows are just as bad.

christo930 Says:

Jul 27, 2009 - Why in the world would we want to just let students decide for themselves? Science is not a decision. You could say the rejection of science is a decision, but not the accuracy of science. Furthermore, HS juniors simply do not have the needed information to make an informed rejection or acceptance of science. The books should be accurate and that is a major problem (not with the embryos), especially in math books, but that is not what Luskin cares about. He wants to ruin biology to sell his god.

luker4459 Says:

Jul 28, 2009 - Exactly. If there is a debate among experts about an aspect of quantum physics. Do we let the experts settle it between them, or do we ask school kids to decide? Its completely and utterly ridiculous. Science problems are resolved BY SCIENTISTS. Not by popular vote among students.

oXGenesisXo Says:

Aug 2, 2009 - Exactly. If they are so interested in "teaching the controversy" why don't we find them teaching the theory of evolution in church?

DoubtingThomas666 Says:

Aug 11, 2009 - FOX morning show is all about lies and liars. Great TV.

pensego Says:

Aug 17, 2009 - YECs ... PWNED! Casey Luskin ... Epic Fail!

StapleNinja0965 Says:

Aug 22, 2009 - Actually Haeckel's embryos were in my Biology text at school. :P but I live in Texas, and my Biology teacher didn't even believe in dinosaurs (yeah you heard right) so they were pretty much skipped. Lol, my evolution unit was 2 days long, as opposed to the 4 weeks we spent on every other topic. It's sad how stupid people still are.

Dartanian2009 Says:

Oct 25, 2009 - Id say Luskin should have spent a little more time in science class and a little less in bible study

diomedes39 Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - bitchhhh pleaseeee

toxickatie Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - BWAHAHA I love john calverts face when Randy olsen is just like "lets take a look here"

Royleans Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - Casey Luskin is a liar!!!

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - Randy Olson was shown to be wrong on this one. And he didnt correct the mistake. So in a way, Randy Olson is the one who's a liar.

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - Randy Olson was the liar on this one.

freedom0f5peech Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - @Mortison77577 Please explain what Randy was wrong about, and provide a source and date. Thanks.

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - Go to the hoax of dodos website. The Discovery Institute can be pretty dishonest, but I doubt they would forge that stuff. If you watch one of the ID debates Ken Miller openly admits that his textbooks had this problem. Stephen J. Gould wrote something saying it was bad that the drawings were still in textbooks (not just for historical information) which is ironic given that Randy Olson worked with Gould. Olson didn't necessarily blatantly lie - he may'be just ignored some stuff until too late.

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - Randy Olson was wrong because he said that Haeckl's embryos were not used in recent textbooks unless it was to illustrate a historical point. But that's not true, they are still in recent textbooks and they are used to describe embryos as if they really look like that.

freedom0f5peech Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - @Mortison77577 I'll check it out. Though I'm already wondering if people are confusing comparisons of the embryo's with the original drawing. Haeckl just over-embellished with his drawings.

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - What do you mean by "confusing comparisons of the embryo's with the original drawing". You mean, it's in the textbooks to compare outdated views on this issue with the current scientific thinking? I think that was how this error crept into the textbooks in the first place: textbook authors confused historical material for current material and the error kept on coming back (for over 100 years!). The excuse that some figures are not identical to Heckl's doesn't really cut it.

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - The ones that are similiar, but not identical to Heckl's are clearly derived from Haeckls and they are still misleading in the same way, so I don't think anybody should make excuses for that.

freedom0f5peech Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - @Mortison77577 Depends whether they are accurate or not.

Mortison77577 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - What do you mean? The reworked ones are just as bad as Haeckl's original ones, they are just changed slightly, maybe a few of them are a little better, but they all differ markedly from the photographs. Nevertheless, they could be worse, they could be more different from real life then they are. I get the sense that the question of why embryos look the same or different is still unresolved with evolutionary developmental biology, but still the drawings greatly exaggerate the evidence.