I don't know if they are used in "a lot of textbooks" or not, but I remember seeing the image in one of my high school textbooks. Then again, my Earth Science teacher was a belligerent anti-religionist pro-atheist who would frequently skip teaching and just pop in a video that tried to disprove supernatural or psychic phenomenon. I'm not talking about an atheist who just does their job and teaches the subject - I'm talking he would frequently bring up religion and mock it or try to make blanket statements about why religion is dumb. So, as a lousy teacher who was actively pushing his religion of atheism, he would be the type to pick a textbook with Haeckel's embryos.
Disclaimer: For those too stupid to read what I said, I am not using my personal experience as "proof" that the statement is right about its use in "a lot of textbooks." I'm merely stating that it is indeed in SOME textbooks. Dumb ones to be sure, but a lot of dumb people write books. And some of them have PHDs.
reply
share
daenku32
15 years ago
"Seeing an image" is not quite the same as "being used". For one, there are drawings that are not part of the infamous set. After all, scientists were attempting to draw embryos well before photography was used. Even then drawings can be used to show a more contrasted picture of an embryo.
I have also seen drawings of embryos. That doesn't mean the were Haeckel's. If you do know of a book that uses his drawing please do cite it and tells us how they are being used.
reply
share
SeanMarshall
14 years ago
Exactly, memory is tricky. It may be he saw some drawings, it may be he saw pictures, it may be they were the Haeckel's drawings (but were shown to expose the mistake), it may be there were no pictures or drawings and he's filled in a memory he wished to be true, it may be he's so old that the book has hair grease on the pages, etc.
reply
share