Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent "proofs" for evolution may have helped to cause
the abortion that killed my baby, a victim of infanticide.

What you will read--

  • Introduction
  • "Who was Ernst Haeckel?"
  • "What is Haeckel's Law of Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law?"
  • "Where do the fraudulent pictures come in?"
  • Practically from the beginning, evolution was using fairy and stories and pictures/graphics/illustrations to "prove" and decorate the stories. This is still happening today.
  • "How were Haeckel's pictures fraudulent?"
  • See Haeckel's drawings
  • When was Haeckel's fraud exposed?
  • What about the gill slits?
  • "Why did Haeckel work such deception?"
  • More quotes about Haeckel's "law"
  • Embryonic stages of the human heart reverse the Haeckel's theoretical evolutionary pattern.
  • Haeckels's fraud is still being used in textbooks today although it has been proven a fraud.
  • More quotes on the shortcomings of Haeckel's fraudulent assertions.
  • The continued flood of lies and deceptions of evolution portend/indicate a dark future.

(Emphases ours, further information on quoted articles at end of this article)


There are evolution frauds that are known to be frauds but they are still being used today as "evidence" of evolution. In researching this matter, the fraudulent evolution charts of Ernst Haeckel made me think of an incident when I was in school (Haeckel drew some pictures and basically said that human and animal embryos all go through the evolutionary cycle). I think that I was in college when the instructor said that a baby in the womb in like a "a little piece of fish flesh." In Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, he showed that human "embryos" and animal embryos look alike.

Subsequent to remembering those lying words, I continued my researches and came across the following words taken from an internet article, "Lying Evolutionary Art, Haeckel's Embryo Chart" (found at

Haeckel's myth that the developing human embryo is animal-like has encouraged the modern abortion industry. Dr. Henry Morris wrote:

"We can justifiably charge this evolutionary nonsense of recapitulation [Haeckel called his theory the "law of recapituation" (defined later in this article)] with responsibility for the slaughter of helpless, pre-natal children--or at least for giving it a pseudo-scientific rationale" (The Long War [A]gainst God, 1989, p. 139)

We have seen that Haeckel believed that the embryo is still in the evolutionary stage and not fully human. He said that it is "completely devoid of consciousness, is a pure 'reflex' machine,' just like a lower vertebrae" (Weikart, p. 147). Thus, killing an unborn baby would be like killing an animal.

Haeckel taught that even the newborn child has no soul and therefore infanticide "cannot rationally be classed as murder" (Haeckel, The Wonders of Life, 1904, p. 21). For physically or mentally handicapped infants, Haeckel recommended "a small dose of morphine or cyanide" (Weikart, p. 147).

In 1990, Carl Sagan and his wife Ann Druyan, argued that abortion is ethical on the grounds that the fetus is not fully human until the sixth month. Taking Haeckel's recapitulation theory as fact, they claimed that the embryo begins as "a kind of parasite" and changes into something like a fish with "gill arches" and then becomes "reptilian" and finally "mammalian." By the end of the second month, the fetus "is still not quite human" [our note: the baby is always a person. I read of one woman who was going to have an abortion but when she saw her baby she called it her "little gummy bear" and kept the baby. The law should make it required that females see pictures of the baby and be apprised of what they are doing--many do not know and believe that the baby in their womb is not a baby yet. All people will receive due recompense of reward for their works.] ("The Question of Abortion: A Search for the Answers," Parade, April 22, 1990).

*** "Who was Ernst Haeckel?" ***

Ernst Haeckel was a contemporary of Charles Darwin and a devoted follower. He championed the "idea that during the first few months in the womb each of us as an embryo, passes through various stages in which we have gills like a fish and a tail like a lizard. He called it the Law of Recapitulation, or the Biogenetic Law." (Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, Chapter 22 Vestiges and Recapitulation).

*** "What is Haeckel's Law of Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law?" ***

Haeckel's "Law" of Recapitulation/Biogenetic "Law" basically states that--

...the human embryo goes through an evolutionary cycle during which it resembles a single-celled marine organism, then a worm, then a fish with gill slits, then a monkey with a tail, and finally a human. According to recapitulation, each creature repeats or recapitulates the entire alleged evolutionary history. Thus, the human embryo progresses from a single cell to a fish to an amphibian to a reptile to a mammal to an ape to a human." (Lying Evolutionary Art...,

*** "Where do the fraudulent pictures come in? ***

Haeckel drew some pictures to "prove" the "law" of recapitulation. (where is the "scientific method"?) He drew embryos of animals and of a human baby. His chart of these pictures "first appeared in print in 1866 in his book Generalle Morphologie der Organismen and in 1868 in The Natural History of Creation, and since then it has been republished in various forms in countless textbooks, journals, popular reports, and museums. It is still appearing in textbooks in the 21st century. One teacher said, 'I have taught Jr. High Science for over 35 years. Every textbook from every major publisher I have ever seen has had Haeckel's embryos pictured and the text usually claims this as proof for evolution" ( [Lying Evolutionary Art...]

Practically from the beginning, evolution was using fairy and stories and pictures/graphics/illustrations to "prove" and decorate the stories. This is still happening today.

Concerning Haeckel's "law of recapitulation"/biogenesis, the Evolution Encyclopedia states--

A carefully contrived fraud was involved in the promulgation of this theory. Darwin hinted at recapitulation in his 1859, Origin of the Species, so his devoted disciple, Thomas H. Huxley, included a pair of DRAWINGS of canine and human embryos in an 1863 book he wrote. Darwin placed those same drawings in his 1871 book, Descent of Man. Ernst Haeckel, in Germany, seized upon Darwin's SUGGESTION and ANNOUNCED his Biogenetic Law.

What do we see in the previous quote?

  1. "hint",
  2. "drawings",
  3. "announcement",
  4. "law"

Where is the so-called scientific method? Hints, hunches, and drawings, and imagination are no part of the scientific method but they are the faulty, vain, foundation of what the theory of evolution is based on.

This same kind of activity continues to be is seen today in evolutionary circles--even in examining the website of the Smithsonian Institution where one can see photos, videos, etc. that "hint"--no, totally imply--no, practically prove that beasts and humans are extremely similar to humans. At the same website one can read the "announcements" and "proclamations" about whatever tale is being told. One can also peruse other graphics like charts and a "human family tree". Under "Human Evolution Evidence" one can click on "Human Fossils" and then on "Species"--and what does one find?


While the exact number of early human species is debated, on this page are links to SUMMARIES of the early human species accepted by most scientists. Click on any species to learn more about it.

Below the summaries is a CHART SHOWING the time span during which the fossils of each species have been found. (

Right after this text is a series of DRAWINGS and PICTURES OF artist conceptions of gorilla people [Aside: the images look like black people (I am black for those who would accuse me of racism). It is surprising that people do not seem to say a word about this. Based on what I read, Darwin and crew were extremely "racist". An excerpt from "Darwinian Racism" (

Charles Darwin and all of the founding evolutionists were racists who considered people such as the Negro, the Australian aborigine, and the Asian inferior to whites.

"Although racism certainly existed before the 1850s, evolution gave white Europeans a 'scientific' justification to dominate the 'less evolved' Africans and Australian Aborigines. Australian Aborigines were actually killed and taken to London as museum specimens of the 'missing link' between apemen and modern humans. A pygmy by the name of Ota Benga was placed on exhibit in the monkey house at the Bronx Zoo. What could justify such treatment of humans? Evolution was used to justify the display because the Africans, Aborigines, and Mongols (Asians) were arbitrarily considered inferior races to the Caucasians of Europe" (Roger Patterson, Evolution Exposed, p. 219)

In Outcasts from Evolution, John Haller documented "the ingrained, firm, and almost universal racism of North American men of science during the nineteenth (and into the twentieth) century."

Dr. Henry Morris observed, "It was not only Darwin and the Huxley, the two top evolutionists, who were racists. All of them were!" (The Long War Against God, p. 61)]

...Back to the Smithsonian website. When you click on a thumbnail to get more information (e.g., australopithecus afarensis), it gives the "image credit" for the "artist" and the "photographer". One also gets more fairy tale-like information and perhaps a sound bite on how to say the "species" name.


What is seen at the subject Smithsonian website is totally reminiscent of our article, "Are these photos?" They may have the name "Smithsonian" but what they are presenting is not proof. When people do not receive the love of the truth, God sends them strong delusion that they should believe a lie.


Evolutionists often cast out epithets against anyone who is not deceived by their belief system. They call non-deceived people names like, "unscientific."

Many evolutionists are evolutionists because they were tricked into it like I was. They hear about it and then as the years go by, they continue to be accosted with evolution "facts" in schools, television, magazines, books, movies, etc. Evolution is used to explain all sorts of things. The belief in evolution (and the belief in the infallibility of man's science) is so ingrained into the fiber of these people's being, that to hear anybody say that evolution is not true makes the evolutionist think that the non-evolutionist is a basically a certified fool--in actuality, it was the evolutionist that was tricked. Every once in a while in researching this topic one comes across the epithets and mean words spurt out by God hating evolutionists. They are rabid in their dedication to the idea of evolution and one can see that it is because they will not have God to rule over them. They don't care that they do not have proof. I read a quote some time ago in which the person that said that even with proof of God they would not believe. THESE TYPES OF WORDS ARE THE WORDS OF CONFIRMED, SEARED-CONSCIENCE, I-WILL-DO-WHAT-I-FEEL-LIKE-DOING SINNERS.

Evolution is what the Bible calls, false science. Evolutionism does not use the so-called "scientific method" when it comes to evolution. A table top full of shards of fossilized bone is not proof and neither is the reconstruction of a whole body based on a tooth. Make no mistake, I appreciate good science and have been the beneficiary thereof, but evolution is not science, it is a pack of lies.

"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel's 'theory of recapitulation,' facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science." Gavin de Beer, A Century of Darwin (1858). [Encyclopedia of Evolution Vol. 3, Chapter 22 (.htm, p. 8)]

The "evidence" for evolution is so non-existent that proven frauds are still being used as "evidence" and more and more outrageous proofs are offered to the deceived, those who cannot see what is happening. The people actually believe it.

Quotes found in the Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, Chapter 22 - Vestiges and Recapitulation--

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his speciality, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate..It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible." P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?," Encyclopedia Francaise Vol. [ ] (1937), p. 6

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence." [our note: Darwinism is a belief in no God so that men will do whatever sins that they feel like doing answering to themselves--this is perilous work indeed, for the stakes are high.] R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.

*** "How were Haeckel's pictures fraudulent?" ***

He mislabeled embryos, changed the size of embryos, deleted and added parts, changed parts. "For his 'embryo of man in the fish-stage,' Haeckel either removed or doctored more than half of the embryo's essential organs." (Lying Evolutionary Art...)

"His piece de resistance was his manipulation of the drawing of a human embryo by Ecker. He changed the details of the human eye significantly, made the human posterior twice its actual length, took 2 mm off the head, and like the Macaque, removed the arms, legs and heart" ("The Life of Ernst Haeckel," Creation Worldview Ministries, [excerpted from Lying Evolutionary Art...]

"Haeckel brazenly ignored every facet of embryology that directly disproved his theory." (Lying Evolutionary Art, Haeckel's Embryo Chart). Haeckel was on a mission.

See Haeckel's drawings by clicking below--

*** When was Haeckel's fraud exposed? ***

Haeckel's fraud was known in his lifetime--and he was rebuked for it. Hackel's charts have been exposed as fakes through the years since then. According to the article, Survival of the Fakest, "they have been known to scholars of Darwin and evolutionary theory to be forgeries for over a hundred years. But none of them, apparently, have seen fit to correct this almost ubiquitous misinformation."

  1. "In 1868, L. Rutimeyer wrote an article entitled, "Referate, " which appeared on pages 301-302 of the Archiv fur Anthropologic (Archives of Anthropology). In that article, Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, reviewed two of Haeckel's books, Natural History of Creation (Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte), and his Uberdie Enstehung and den Stammbaum ties Menschengeschlechts, both of which had been newly published the same year that Rutimeyer's review was published: 1868.
    'Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly. No one will quarrel with the first evaluation of the author, but the second quality is not one that he seriously can claim. These are works, clothed in medieval formalistic garb. There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs.' --L Rutimeyer, "Referate," in Archiv fur Anthropologic (1868).

    "Rutimeyer then continues on and discusses the fraudulent woodcuts. For example, the dog embryo and human embryo, shown on page 240 of Haeckel's book, are completely identical. Haeckel maintained that he faithfully copied the dog embryo from Bischoff (4th week), and the human embryo from Ecker (4th week). Rutimeyer then reprints the original drawing made by Bischoff of a dog embryo at 4 weeks, and the original of a human embryo at 4 weeks made by Ecker. The originals were very much different!" [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm p. 10)]

    Haeckel's deception was exposed by Ludwig Rutimeyer, a professor at the University of Basel, who brought the matter to the attention of the university at Jena. Rutimeyer called the drawings "a sin against scientific truthfulness." Rutimeyer demonstrated that Haeckel had used the same woodcut of a dog embryo three times to depict the supposed wormlike stage of what he called the embryos of a dog, a chicken, and a tortoise. Haeckel was convicted at a university tribunal and made a "confession" of sorts, but even his confession was a lie. He claimed that his draughtsman made the blunder, not acknowledging that he was the draughtsman (Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered," [excerpted from Lying Evolutionary Art...]

  2. Haeckel's embryo fraud was also exposed early on by Wilhelm His, Sr., professor of anatomy at the university of Leipzig. His showed how that Haeckel had doctored his embryo charts to make them fit his theory and concluded that "anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud had forfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks of scientific research workers of any stature" (cited from Shawn Boonstra, Out of Thin Air, p. 47) [excerpted from Lying Evolutionary Art...]

    Wilhelm His, Sr. (1831-1904) a German embryologist, exposed the hoax in detail in an 1874 publication (Unsere Korperform), and concluded that Haeckel was dishonest and was thereby discredited from the ranks of trustworthy research scientists. It is to be noted that Wilhelm His prepared the scholarly books on embryological development which are the foundation of all modern human embryology. Yet neither Haeckel's fraud, nor His' expose, has ever been widely discussed in English scientific publications, and never in any publication for the public eye. [Evolution Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Chapter 22 (.htm, p. 8)]

    Wilhelm His, Sr. was another highly-respected contemporary German scientist. The first major scientific book on embryology was prepared by His, Sr., and published in 1880. His not only perfected serial sections technique, so important in embryological studies, but he also pioneered the wax plate method of accurate scale reconstructions from such sections. He was the first to identify the bundle of His in the heart.

    His, Sr. wrote a series of letters to Carl Ludwig; these were later published in Leipzig under the title, Unsere Koperform and das Physiologische Problem Ihrer Entstehung. The fourteenth letter in the series deals with Haeckel's fraudulent activities. As the basis for His' analysis, he used the 5th edition of Haeckel's Natural History of Creation.

    His explained in details the extent of the fake woodcuts, and the false claims in the accompanying text. He also noted that, in another book by Haeckel, the Anthropogenie, two figures of human embryos in the blastula stage were shown with the allantois clearly visible, yet the allantois never appears in the blastula stage of growth.

    He also discussed the 24 figures in the two-page spread on pages 256-257 of Haeckel's book. He angrily declared them to be gross distortions of reality, and not true to life, and said that Haeckel did it in order to show similarity of form, even though such similarity did not actually exist.

    His also pointed out that Haeckel was a professor at the University of Jena, which was noted for having excellent optical facilities. Thus, according to His, there was no excuse for these fraudulent productions. His concluded by denouncing Haeckel as a fraud, and henceforth as eliminated from the ranks of scientific research workers. [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm, p. 11)]

  3. "Another scientist, who at about the same time also protested against Haeckel's fakeries, was Albert Fleischmann (Die Descendztheorie (1901), pp. 202-252.) But it was all to no avail. Evolutionists gleefully reprinted Haeckel's charts over and over again." [Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, 22 Appendix, .htm]

  4. In 1915 Haeckel's fraud was publicized in the book Haeckel's Frauds and Forgeries by Joseph Assmuth and Ernest Hull, which cited 19 authorities, but this carefully documented work was largely ignored by Darwinian scientists and educators in their zeal to disprove the Bible. [excerpted from Lying Evolutionary Art...]

  5. "It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange anomaly. The textbook I was using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos - fish, chickens, humans, etc. -- where similarities were presented as evidence for descent from a common ancestor. Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I'd been studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a microscope. And I KNEW THAT THE DRAWING WERE JUST PLAIN WRONG.

    "I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings, and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from one another.

    "Like most other science students, like most scientists themselves, I let it pass. It didn't immediately affect my work, and I assumed that while the texts had somehow gotten this particular issue wrong, it was the exception to the rule. In 1997, however, my interest in the embryo drawings was revived when British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleagues published the result of their study comparing the textbook drawings with actual embryos. As Richardson himself was quoted in the prestigious journal Science: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.'

    "Worse, this was no recent fraud. Nor was its discovery recent. The embryo drawings that appear in most every high school and college textbook are either reproductions of, or based on, a famous series of drawings by the 19th century German biologist and fervent Darwinian, Ernst Haeckel, and they have been known to scholars of Darwin and evolutionary theory to be forgeries for over a hundred years. But none of them, apparently, have seen fit to correct this almost ubiquitous misinformation.

    "Still thinking this an exceptional circumstance, I became curious to see if I could find other mistakes in the standard biology texts dealing with evolution. My search revealed a startling fact however: Far from being excep- tions, such blatant misrepresentations are more often the rule. In my recent book I call them "Icons of Evolution," because so many of them are represented by classic oft-repeated illustrations which, like the Haeckel drawings, have served their pedagogical purpose only too well -- FIXING BASIC MISINFORMATION ABOUT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN THE PUBLIC'S MIND." [Article: "Survival of the Fakest"]

As noted in our article, "The Theory of Evolution: Endless Lies, Tales, and Artist Conceptions," evolutionists do not have real proof. They are so poverty-stricken for "evidence" that they will keep on using lies and foisting them on children in classrooms and other locations like museums and in magazines--even after those children become adults. As they do this over and over again and the mind comes to believe that evolution is true. Many, many people have believed that these artist conceptions are actual proof of evolution. In the case of Haeckel's charts, the people are not embryologists so they have nothing with which to compare this fraudulent information, they just believe that the textbook is "official" and true.

...when the false "evidence" is taken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks at least, is so think it's almost invisible. [Survival of the Fakest...]

*** "Do any biologists know that Haeckel's drawings are fakes? ***

From "Survival of the Fakest" (pdf page 3)--

...biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos never look as similar as Haeckel drew them. In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes. In others, he doctored his drawings to make the embryos appear more alike than they really were. Haeckel's contemporaries repeatedly criticized him for these misrepresentations, and charges of fraud abounded in his lifetime. In 1997, British embryologist Michael Richardson and an international team of experts compared Haeckel's drawings with photographs of actual vertebrate embryos, demonstrating conclusively that the drawings misrepresent the truth.

The drawings are misleading in another way. Darwin based his inference of common ancestry on the belief that the earliest stages of embryo development are the most similar [our note: article states elsewhere that Darwin was no embryologist but was impressed with Haeckel's drawings]. Haeckel's drawings, however, entirely omit the earliest stages, which are much different, and start at a more similar midway point. Embryologist William Ballard wrote in 1976 that it is "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature," that one can argue that the early stages of vertebrates "are more alike than their adults."

Yet some version of Haeckel's drawings can be found in most current biology textbooks. Stephen Jay Gould, one of evolutionary theory's most vocal proponents, recently wrote that we should be "astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks." (I will return below to the question of why it is only now that Mr. Gould, who has known of these forgeries for decades, has decided to bring them to widespread attention.) [see this article here to learn the answer about Mr. Gould and to see examples of textbooks that publish incorrect information.]

*** What about the gill slits? ***

Evolutionists have claimed that the human embryo has gill slits which prove that people are descended from fish. These are not gills, there are actually folds, each of which has a specific purpose. People do not go through evolutionary stages of fish, lizard, chicken, etc. The following comes from The Encyclopedia of Evolution Volume 3, Chapter 22: Vestiges and Recapitulation--

...the theory that, as embryos, people have gill slits, is something that knowledgeable scientists no longer claim. Only the ignorant ones. Let me explain.

In the embryo there are, for a time, three small folds to be seen in the front of its throat. These three bubble outward slightly from the neck. Carefully examining these folds, we find no gills to extract oxygen out of water, and no gill slits (no openings) of ay kind. These are not gill slits! There are no slits and no gills. More recent careful research has disclosed that the upper fold contains the apparatus that will later develop into the middle ear canals, the middle fold will later become the parathyroid, the bottom fold will soon grow into the thymus gland.

As for what evolutionists called the "yolk sac" on the human embryo--

A very tiny human being is connected to its mother and receives nourishment from her, therefore it does not need a yolk sac. But it does need a means of making its own blood until its bones are developed. For although nourishment passes from the mother to the embryo, blood does not. That tiny human being must make its own. You and I make our blood in the marrow of our bones, embryos are only beginning to form their bones and the marrow within them, so they cannot make blood in their bones and, for a time, need another organ elsewhere to fulfill that function.

The first blood in your body came from that very tiny sack-like organ, long before you were born. When it is removed from an embryo, death immediately follows.

Your blood is now made within your bones, but when you were an embryo it was different. The problem is that it takes blood to make the bones that will make the blood! So a wonderful Designer arranged that, for a short time in your life, a little nodule, for many years called a "useless organ" because scientists were ignorant of its purpose, would make the red blood your body needed until you bones were made! [Evolution Encyclopedia Volume 3, Chapter 22...]

As for what evolutionists called the "lizard tail" on the human embryo--

Even though it looks like a "tail" in a human embryo, it later becomes the lower part of the spinal column in the child and adult. [Evolution Encyclopedia Volume 3, Chapter 22...]

Click here to see a diagram of the embryonic folds

*** "Why did Haeckel work such deception?" ***

He was intent on giving a reason to exclude God as Creator. A quote from Ernst Haeckel speaking about the necessity of the teaching of spontaneous generation (basically life just sprang up from something non-living)--

"...this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation..." (The History of Creation, Vol. 1, 1892 p. 422, (internet); 1876, Vol. 1, p. 348 (Evolution Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Chapter 22)

If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation [of life from non-living matter], then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation." Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation (1878), Vol. 1. p. 348 [Evolution Encyclopedia... (htm p. 8)]

It is hard to believe that people would hate God so much that they would tell any lie to deceive people so that the people might forget God--but there are haters of God and there are those who would deceived people--

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

*** More quotes about Haeckel's "law" ***

"The biogentic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated wrong by numerous subsequent scholars." Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 [Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University.] [Evolution Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Chapter 22 (.htm, p.8)]

Even though Haeckel called it a "law," the "Law of Recapitulation," recent scientists have less complementary words for it:

"[It is] a theory that, in spite of its exposure, its effects continue to linger in the nooks and crannies of zoology." G.R. DeBeer and W.E. Swinton, in T.S. Westall (ed). Studies in Fossil Vertebrates" [Evolution Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Chapter 22 (.htm p. 9)]

"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper, since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel [our note: see "Darwinian Racism" for more on how the founding evolutionists were racists]." Ashley Montagu, debate held April 12, 1980 at Princeton University, quoted in LD. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, p. 119. [Evolution Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Chapter 22 (.htm p. 10)]

When, during that debate, a comment was made just afterward that recapitulation was still being defended and taught in various colleges and universities, Montagu said this:

"Well, ladies and gentlemen, that only goes to show that many so-called educational institutions, so-called 'universities,' are not educational institutions at all or universities; they are institutes for miseducation." Op. cit., p. 120. [Encyclopedia of Evolution, Volume 3, Chapter 22... (p. 10)]

"The facts of embryology have left the recapitulation theory without satisfactory proofs.

"...Professor. T.S. Westoll called it 'sheer nonsense.' But in spite of the categorical rejection of the theory by men of great scientific status, and distinguished embryologists, there are still a few teachers of biology who obstinately cling to it." --H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), pp. 57-58. [Evolution Encyclopedia, Volume 3, 22 Appendix (.htm, p. 6)]

"The theory of recapitulation. . .should be defunct today." Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down's Syndrom," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144 [Encyclopedia of Evolution, Volume 3, Chapter 22 (.htm, p. 10)]

The following statement was made as part of the introduction to the 1956 reprint of Darwin's Origin of the Species.

"...Haeckel altered the illustrations to fit his theory...The 'biogenetic law' as a proof of evolution is valueless." --W.R. Thompson, Introduction to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (1956 ed.). [Evolution Encyclopedia, Volume 3, 22 Appendix (.htm, p. 7)]

W.R. Bird, Origin of the Species Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 198-197 [sic] [as quoted in Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm, p. 7)]--

"The biogenetic law has been 'demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars,' according to Bock who was a biology professor at Columbia. . "Raup and Stanley call the biogenetic law 'largely in error'; Ehrlich and Holm note its 'shortcomings' and its place in 'biological mythology'; Danson says that it is 'intellectually barren'; de Beer refers to the 'evidence against the "biogenetic law" of recapitulation in Haeckel's sense'; Bonner of Princeton calls it 'probably nonsense'; Encyclopedia Britannica calls it 'in error'; and even Mayr of Harvard describes the biogenetic law as 'invalid.' In fact, Haeckel, the formulator of the 'biogenetic law,' supported it with 'faked' drawings."

"This law has been so seriously questioned and is so obviously inapplicable in many instances that as a law it is now of historical interest only." --W.R. Brenaman, Animal Form and Function (1954), p. 407 [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm, p. 4)]

No longer convincing , or even interesting.

"The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages, or the like, no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists." --Conrad H. Waddington, Principles of Embryology (1956), p. 10 [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm p. 8)]

"Well, the Biogenetic Law--embryonic recapitualtion--I think was debunked back in the 1920s by the embryologists."--Dr. David Raup...taped interview... [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm, p. 8)]

"...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history." --Hubert Fringe and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (1970), p. 267 [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm, p. 8)]

The theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology." --Gavin R. de Beer, Embryos and Ancestors, (revised ed., 1951), p. 10. [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm page 8)]

The concept is a dead one.

Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail." --Keith Stewart Thomson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny* Recapitulated," American Scientist, May-June 1988, p. 273 [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix (.htm p. 9)]
*Definition of Ontogeny and Phylogeny from Evolution Encyclopedia, Vo'. 3, Chapter 22 (.htm, p. 6)--

"Did you ever notice that big words are sometimes used as proof in themselves? Because it is a big word, therefore it must be true. The phrase the evolutionists use to describe their "recapitulation theory" is this: "Ontogeny [on-TAH-gen-ee] recapitulates (ree-cah-PIH-chu-lates) phylogeny [fil-LAW-gen-ee]." A very learned phrase indeed! "Ontogeny" is the history of the development of an organism from fertilization to hatching or birth, and "phylogeny" is the imagined evolutionary development of life forms.

"But these big words only cover over a very foolish theory."

*** Embryonic stages of the human heart reverse Haeckel's theoretical evolutionary pattern. ***

[our note: I place this here because I heard with my own ears a medical instructor who looked at the development of the human heart as absolute, lock-solid proof of evolution. He shook his head as if it were foolish for anyone to not believe what to him was so obvious. Many, many people have been deceived by the pictures, artist conceptions, fairy tales, legends, myths, tall tales, lies, graphics, and deceptions of evolution. They played me for the fool, too.]

"One favorite example was the human heart. Supposedly, the heart passed through a worm, fish, frog, and reptile stage before reaching its final fourth. It is true that at one stage or another the heart in the human embryo has one chamber (as in the worm), two chambers (as in the fish), three chambers (as in the frog), and four chambers with the connection of the two sides (as in the reptile). But it should be noted that the heart in human beings starts out with two chambers which fuse into one for a time. This sequence actually reverses the stages of supposed evolution. There are reasons for each step.... [Evolution Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, 22 Appendix, (.htm, p. 4-5]

*** Haeckel's fraud is still being used in textbooks today although it has been proven a fraud. ***

"Biology textbooks continue to use the embryo chart as a major evidence for evolution. In some cases, they repeat Haeckel's doctrine of recapitulation, while it is more common for the embryo chart to be used as an example of homology." [Lying Evolutionary Art, Haeckel's Embryo Chart .htm p. 3.]

*** More quotes on the shortcomings of Haeckel's fraudulent assertions.

Taken from Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, 22 Appendix--

The shortcomings of this crude interpretation have been almost universally pointed out (except in the school textbooks).
"This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.' This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in BIOLOGICAL MYTHOLOGY." --Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, Process of Evolution (1963), p. 66 [Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, 22 Appendix, .htm 8]

Among scientists, its abolition is now established.

"It is now firmly established that ontogeny DOES NOT repeat phylogeny." --George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life,: An Introduction to Biology (1965), p. 241. [Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, 22 Appendix, .htm 8]

It was an unfortunate exaggeration.

"The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the 'biogenetic law' and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during it embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species." --Gavin R. de Beer, Atlas of Evolution (1964), p. 38 [Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 3, 22 Appendix, .htm, 8]

Disgusted with Haeckel's "cheating tricks," Rager said this:

"Haeckel was not prudish in the selection of tools for his fight. In order to prove the validity of the law of biogenesis, he published several figures, the originals and legends of which were faked up.

"This fake is now shown in a few examples. For this purpose he used the same printing stock three times and invented a different legend for each copy

"There are a number of other figures the originals of which were changed by Haeckel in order to demonstrate that human ontogeny successively passes through stages of development which repeat phylogeny.

"This is not the first time that Haeckel's fake has been revealed. The well known zoologist Ludwig Rutimeyer (1868) protested against it.

"The law of biogenesis had to use CHEATING TRICKS IN ORDER TO FIT DATA TO THE THEORY." --G. Rager, "Human Embryology and the Law of Biogenesis," in Rivista di Biologic (Biology Forum) 79 (1988), p. 451-452.

Singer considered Haeckel's work to be a mass of contradictions, acceptable only to the scientifically uneducated.

"His [Haeckel's] faults are not hard to see. For a generation and more he purveyed to the semi-educated public a system of the crudest philosophy--if a mass of contradictions can be called by that name. He founded something that wore the habiliments of a religion, of which he was at once the high priest and the congregation." --C. Singer, A History of Biology (1931), p. 487.

He said he was merely filling some missing details.

"To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that 'hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.'" --*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 120.

He was a doctorer of science.

" . . ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point." --William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Settling Evolution (1984), p. 285.

*** The continued flood of lies and deceptions of evolution portend/indicate a dark future. ***

The purveyors of lies are not backing down. The lies keep coming.

Many, many people have believed in evolution because of Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent charts and accompanying stories. The deception is not limited to Haeckel, however. People are being deceived into believing evolution by many, many different stories and artist conceptions. Instead of the scientific method, evolution continues to rely on fanciful artist conceptions (like of gorilla men); fanciful, unprovable stories; shards of bone (which at times have been fakes); hints and insinuations; etc.. The fabrication of "spontaneous generation" is apparently not subjected to the scientific method because the scientific method will show that it is an impossibility and that there is no evolution. There are those who know the truth--that God is the Creator--and they hold it in unrighteousness.

Where will these things end? They will not go on forever. These are the last days, but before the return of the Lord there shall be great tribulation heretofore unknown.

One might perceive that as the people keep chanting to and worshipping devils, new lies will crop up--there will be "understandings" arising from the evil spirits that the wizards/witches/magicians/etc. will see, interface with, do magic by, be troubled by, and be controlled by.

There may be more on evolution forthcoming--known hoaxes, scientist quotes on lack of evidence, etc.


  • Survival of the Fakest

  • Evolution Encyclopedia Volume 3, Chapter 22 - Vestiges and Recapitulation (, or here)

  • Evolution Encyclopedia Volume 3, 22 Appendix ( or here for more information and more quotes and even textbook titles of textbooks that continued to use Haeckel's charts)

  • Lying Evolutionary Art, Haeckel's Embryo Chart" (found at, do search on title)

  • Are these photos?


Notes and Quotes Index

Deception Series and Email Archives

Home Page