[CarolinaGuitarman]

"ROTFL!!! They are used and often!! I checked out a book when I was pregnant to show my son the progression of the growth of the baby and what did we get??? Haeckel drawings, and the book was copyrighted 1996."

That's not true. They DO use photographs of embryo's though. That's different than the drawings that Haeckel used.

"See, evolution is a lie, is based on a lie and it has nothing but lies as it's foundation. That's why those fake drawings are still being used. The Evo fairy tale people have nothing else."

The lie is the insistence that Haeckel's drawings are still used. They aren't.

[VadeRetro]

They DO use photographs of embryo's though.

Jonathan Wells assigns textbooks a grade of "D" for using photographs of embryos to make any points about evolution.

To improve their grade to a D, a book uses "misleading photographs" of real embryos instead of the Haeckelian drawings. Again, however, what is the objection here? These aren't fudged or inaccurate drawings. They are photographs of vertebrate embryos that accurately illustrate what they look like, that anyone with a microscope and access to embryos can see (Figure 3). Is it next on his agenda to condemn classes that allow students to examine live or preserved embryos in the laboratory?

Figure 3. A chick embryo at the second day of development. The peculiar way that the vertebrate face is initially structured from arches of tissue (the jaw arch, j, and the 2nd, or hyoid arch, h, are labeled) that subsequently rearrange themselves is clearly seen.

Wells and Haeckel's Embryos.

[Full Court]

The Heackle drawings WERE and ARE used. You can lie until you are blue in the face, but they are still used. In fact, a friend of mine has a copy of the pages of that book. I made the copy at the time and sent them to him.

The evolution fairy take rests on nothing but lies and the Heackle drawings are just more proof of that.

[Dimensio]

That's not true. They DO use photographs of embryo's though. That's different than the drawings that Haeckel used.

Actually, Haeckel's drawings have been used in more "recent" biology textbooks. What is not used is Haeckel's claim regarding embryology. That is, Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to make them appear to have similarities that were evidence of evolution, however, no contemporary textbook actually claims that the similarities of Haeckel's embryonic drawings are themselves evidence of evolution.

So the claim that Haeckel's drawings are being used is not a lie. However, when a creationist like Full Court claims that Haeckel's actual fraud is being used to promot evolution, that is a flat-out lie. But that shouldn't be surprising to hear, because creationists lie all the time.