[CarolinaGuitarman]

I am looking through my own biology text from 1993, "Biological Science", by Keeton and Gould. They do indeed have drawing very similar to Haeckel's, though they are noticeably different in certain features. The text on the other hand clearly said that while the examination of early developmental stages is useful in exploring evolutionary relationships, the extreme recapitulation theory of Haeckel is incorrect. Stages can get skipped, and new features can arise. I would think my text was typical.

It is apparent that Haeckel's drawings were used as a guideline, but either through refinement from examination of actual embryos or from changes from multiple copying, the pictures were not exactly the same. Was it used because real photos would go against the idea of an evolutionary connection? No, because real photos are and have been used to do so. The main reason is a general laziness on the part of textbook editors; it's just easier to copy the picture from the previous texts. As I pointed out earlier in a post, Gould noticed the trend in his article, "The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier.". Another reason is it's a lot cheaper to have a drawing than a photograph.

Bottom line: the textbooks didn't accept Haeckel's theories, even if they used his drawings as the basis for their drawings. Creationists are really looking silly being self-righteous about this when their own house is in such disorder, veracity wise.

[Tribune7]

I am looking through my own biology text from 1993, "Biological Science", by Keeton and Gould.

That's a college text. The concerns are directed at the middle and high school texts and there doesn't seem to be any dispute that they are legitmate concerns.

Creationists are really looking silly being self-righteous about this when their own house is in such disorder, veracity wise.

When state ed. departments start buying creationist textbooks, I'm sure they will be more than scrutinized.