[CobaltBlue]

My "faith" in macroevolution was shook when Haekle's woodcuts were known frauds, shortly after their original publication in the 1800s.

Yep, so unless you are reeeeaaaaaaaalllllly old, you never learned about them in school, thus, could not have had any "faith" in them to begin with.

Next, I learned about the whole speckled moth scandle.

Oh, yawn. I wish you guys would come up with something new. Haeckle and peppered (not speckled) moths. Haeckle and peppered moths. Always with the Haeckle and peppered moths.

[keats5]

You're kidding, right? You can still find Haeckle's woodcuts in some biology books used in today's classrooms. They were typically shown in texts in the 1950-80s, and my niece had them in her biology textbook as late as the year 2000.

That's my point. Even though everyone knew these were fakes, they continued to be shown in texts as "proof" of evolution. But when people protest, they're portrayed as crazed, toothless, irrational Bible thumpers. That's intellectually dishonest. The same thing happened with the moths. You can still find thoses photos in relatively recent textbooks today.

As you can clearly see from my post, in addition to these two issues, I've also mentioned issues about DNA, taller kids being portrayed as proof of evolution, mismatched bones being portrayed as "missing links", and the impossibility of Carl Sagan's timelessness of the universe in light of the Big Bang theory.

Yet you've ridiculed me for "only" bringing up the old moth and woodprint issues.

And despite your put-down, you haven't explained why we're still seeing these photos today. Would you agree that they should be taken out of all newly printed textbooks, or do you think they should stay in? Do you think textbooks should be updated when purported evidence of evolution is later shown to be erroneous?