[js1138]

I'm having difficulty understanding this controversy. I have had only two courses in biology, in 1960 and in the late 60s. In both classes the teacher was careful to point out Haeckel's errors, and the error in the catchphrase.

[VadeRetro]

I'm having difficulty understanding this controversy.

Think about how baby frogs look like fish, baby insects look like soft-bodied worms, baby horseshoe crabs look like trilobites, baby lampreys look like amphioxus/brachiostoma (primitive cephalochorates), etc. Try a Yahoo on "evolutionary developmental biology."

The controversy is that there's still a lot of evidence for phylogeny in embryology, but there's the club of Haeckel's historical fraud to make it all go away when arguing before the unprepared jurors of society at large and maybe the school boards. Suppressing evidence is the true nature of ID.

[balrog666]

I'm having difficulty understanding this controversy.

I see it as just another Creationist moving goalpost, i.e., prove it's not in every single current textbook and then prove it was never taught that way when it was in a textbook and then prove it not a conspiracy ...

Whatever you establish, it will never be enough for the invincibly ignorant. And the trolls will never stop raising the point as long as they believe they can disguise the questions as simple ignorance or mischaracterize the answers as some kind of deliberate fraud or conspiracy.

[Virginia-American]

I'm having difficulty understanding this controversy. I have had only two courses in biology, in 1960 and in the late 60s. In both classes the teacher was careful to point out Haeckel's errors, and the error in the catchphrase.

Very similar to my own experience.