10 Deception In The Textbooks

Are there any fraudulent ideas promoted in the teachings and texts of the evolutionists? Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (molecular and cell biology), from UC-Berkeley, lists a few of the known frauds in evolutionary teachings:

We all remember them from biology class: the experiment that created the “building blocks of life” in a tube; the evolutionary “tree,” rooted in the primordial slime and branching out into animal and plant life. Then there were the similar bone structures of, say, a bird’s wing and a man’s hand, the peppered moths, and Darwin’s finches. And don’t forget, Haeckel embryos.

As it happens, all of these examples, as well as many others, purportedly standing as evidence of evolution, turn out to be incorrect. Not just slightly off. Not just slightly mistaken. On the subject of Darwinian evolution, the texts contained massive distortions and even faked evidence. Nor are we only talking about high-school textbooks that some might excuse (but shouldn’t) for adhering to a lower standard. Also guilty are some of the most prestigious and widely used college texts, such as Douglas Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology, and the latest edition of the graduate-level textbook, Molecular Biology of the Cell, coauthored by the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts. In fact, when the false “evidence” is taken away, the case for Darwinian evolution, in the textbooks at least, is so thin it’s almost invisible.155

The Peppered Moth

The peppered moth is no longer believed to be an example of natural selection and evolution-in-progress even though it remains in most major textbooks. The idea presented in the textbooks is that during the Industrial Revolution, smoke and soot from the factories accumulated on the tree trunks where the peppered moths lived. Because of the ash on the tree trunks, the light colored moths were less visible to the birds, so the birds were eating more of the dark colored moths. This is taught to the students as an example of natural selection (one of the primary engines of evolution) in action. There were light and dark colored moths before, during and after the Industrial Revolution. The surprising truth is that the peppered moths never lived on tree trunks as pictured in our texts. Those pictures that display the moths on an ash-covered tree trunk, with the light moth barely visible and the dark moth sticking out like lunch for the nearest bird, are a fraud! Peppered moths do not even rest on tree trunks. Dead moths were glued to the tree trunk for the textbook pictures!156 These fraudulent texts are deceiving our children!

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Timothy 3:13).

Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny

Didn’t we all learn that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?” This is the idea that, for instance, the human embryo goes through a fish stage, reptile stage, etc., while developing in the mother’s womb. Remember those science book pictures of the embryos of different creatures and they all looked alike as they developed in eggs or wombs? Well this may rankle you a bit, but those drawings of embryos were proven to be false in the 1880’s!157 Ernst Haeckel was disciplined by his academic peers in the 1880’s for adding and omitting features and fudging the scale “to exaggerate similarities among species.” His drawings reduced the size of some embryos as much as ten times to make them look similar to other unrelated species.158

This Haeckel embryo FRAUD continues in our childrens’ texts today with full knowledge of the text’s authors and the professors and teachers who teach it! One such text at the college level is Life, Fourth Edition (copyright 2002). (Parents, this book is the Biology text at a “Christian” college. It teaches evolution as fact and equates creationism with astrology, extrasensory perception, fortune telling, healing crystals and psychic phenomena on page 10). This book deals with the Haeckel’s drawings in such a way that after stating that Haeckel took “a bit of artistic license” and that his drawings “did not represent scale,” it says, “The data show that there really are similarities in embryonic structures, supporting the concept of common ancestry.”159 This writer would agree that there are similarities in the external appearance of embryos a few hours to a few days old. How much difference can there be between one-cell, two-cell, four-cell, sixteen-cell, etc., embryos developing in such a way that they, even as totally different organisms, can share a common atmosphere and food chain?

Even the questions at the bottom of page 329 of Life bring the student’s thinking back to the Haeckel idea. Question 4 reads: “Why do vertebrate embryos appear similar, but then become very different adult animals?” What is the answer the text writers are hoping the student will arrive at? Is it, “Embryos appear similar because they are embryologically retracing their evolutionary history as they develop?”

At the top of page 330 of Life, the student is again reminded of the similarities of embryos. Figure 17.13 is entitled “Embryo Resemblances.” Figure 17.13 reproduces a set of Haeckel’s drawings and a set of photographs of the actual embryos (The actual photographs were, I believe, produced by British embryologist, Dr. Michael Richardson in 1997, although Life does not reference the photographs).

There are two horizontal rows of pictures in the text. The top row of five different embryos (fish, salamander, chicken, rabbit and human) is the reproduced Richardson photographs. The second horizontal row is the Haeckel fraudulent drawings. There is very little resemblance between the photos and the drawings. Also, the text does not tell the student if the embryos of the different organisms are at different stages of development or that all embryos are at the same day and stage of development. The sizes of all the embryos are fairly equal in the text pictures, which also give the impression that embryos of rabbits and humans are not all that different!

If the textbook, Life, is truly attempting to dispel the myth of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny as depicted in Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings and still believed by many evolutionists, then Figure 17.13 is mislabeled. Instead of being entitled “Embryo Resemblances,” it should be titled “Haeckel’s Fraudulent Drawings Compared to the Real Embryos.”

Even the explanatory paragraph of Figure 17.13 is misleading. The first sentence reads: “Vertebrate embryos appear alike early in development, reflecting the similarities of basic processes as cells divide and specialize, as the figure shows for five species.” Well, the only embryos that look alike in Figure 17.13 are the reproduced Haeckel drawings, not the Richardson photographs of the real embryos! As a matter of fact, there is a ten-fold difference in the size of the salamander drawing of Haeckel compared to the photo of the real salamander as reported in Science, September 5, 1997. This huge difference in size is not pictured, nor is it mentioned in the Life textbook caption of Figure 17.13. The message that comes across in Life is that embryos are all pretty much alike and that is what we would expect since we all came from fish to amphibian to reptile to birds and mammals. When a person has on their “old universe” evolutionary worldview glasses it appears that they skew the facts and permit themselves to take “a bit of artistic license.”

Toward the end of the text, Life, the authors write: “Today most biologists reject the biogenetic law, as Haeckel’s view is called” (page 778). This sentence is at the far bottom of the left hand page as you look at the text. Your eye immediately scans up to the top of the next page (page 779) where the first thing you see is Figure 40.2 entitled: “Embryonic Resemblances.” And what to your wondering eyes should immediately appear but a huge chart, seven inches wide by six inches high, of the embryo pictures almost identical to Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings. The authors of Life have made their disclaimer and covered their tracks, but the picture they leave with the student’s mind is the same erroneous idea that Ernst Haeckel promoted in the 1880’s!

Christian parents, have you ever taken the time to look at the textbooks your Christian children are forced to study? You will be jolted to reality, if you do!

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).

Vestigial Organs

When this author was majoring in biology at Bucknell University back in the early 1960’s, we were taught that the human body had more than 100 vestigial organs. (Actually the figure 180 was frequently tossed around.) These were supposedly useless organs and tissues left over from some evolutionary ancestors. Times have changed.

The only organ remaining that modern science has not found a current function for is the male nipple. Even this last vestige must now be deleted from the list with the advent of nipple piercing (a function?!).

In recent weeks I have skimmed six different biology textbooks looking for examples of “vestigial organs.” They all had pictures very similar to Haeckel’s with arrows pointing to what the textbooks call “gill slits.” By calling the pharyngeal pouches “gill slits” or even “pharyngeal gill slits,” a wrong idea is planted in the student’s head. Gills are used for breathing. If evolution is true and humans evolved over millions of years from fishy ancestors, then it is only logical that humans should still retain some vestiges, in our embryonic days, of those epochs millions of years ago when we were fish. One of those vestiges of ages gone by is the formation of “gill slits” in the human embryo. Except for one thing—gill slits in the developing human in their mother’s womb are never used for breathing underwater and actually have no relationship at all to fish gills.

The “gill slits” in humans are correctly called pharyngeal pouches. They form part of our middle ear, our parathyroid glands and our thymus gland. The evolutionists want to believe we humans came from fish so they label part of the developing human baby “gill slits,” even though these pharyngeal pouches in humans have absolutely nothing to do with breathing under water while we are in our mother’s womb or after we are born.

Tonsils are not vestigial. They are not left over from some ancient ancestor. They do have a function. Tonsils are part of our immune system, especially during our infancy. Third molars are quite functional in most people with some Caucasians being a common exception.

And another thing: these same textbooks have pictures of human embryos with part of the little baby labeled the “yolk sac.” If we humans came from fish and reptiles, as the evolutionists teach, then we probably have something leftover from our reptile days when we came out of an egg. This is the organ that is labeled on the human embryos in the textbooks the “yolk sac.” But this organ is in no way related to or resembles a fish or reptile egg. It has been mislabeled as a yolk sac to promote evolutionary images in the mind of the reader. This special organ made by the God of the Bible is the baby human’s blood-forming organ and the textbooks should rightly call it what it is. It seems to me that we should use correct labels in our textbooks. But, let us never forget that we are in Satan’s world system and it is built on deception. Satan is the father of lies!

We each have our own blood type, and it may not be the same as our mother’s. When we are too tiny to have bones, but we still need blood to carry the nutrients throughout our little bodies, where does the blood come from? Our mother’s blood does not go directly from her arteries into our arteries. As a matter of fact, we may have different types of blood altogether that would fight each other if they mixed together. So, God made the blood-forming organ to make each baby’s special blood until the baby’s bones develop enough maturity to take over the blood-making duties.

We know a family that the mother has Type O blood. When she was pregnant with her first child, whose blood was Type A, some of that baby’s blood accidentally leaked into the mother’s blood system. As a result, the mother built up antibodies in her blood against Type A blood. Then the mother got pregnant with the second baby. The second baby also had Type A blood. Some of the mother’s blood leaked into the baby’s circulatory system, and the mother’s antibodies began killing the baby’s blood cells. The doctor called this an ABO incompatibility reaction. That baby was very sick until it was cleansed of all of the mother’s antibodies.

Vestigial organs are not vestigial. They have functions. Some organs can be surgically removed from humans (for example the appendix, which is part of our immune system when we are babies) because the Creator, the Lord Jesus, built backup systems into our miraculous bodies.

...thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well (Psalm 139:13b, 14).

Neandert(H)Al Man

Orthodontist Jack Cuozzo, in his well-documented book, Buried Alive (Master Books, 1998), exposes the fraudulent depictions of the Neandertal skulls in the models and textbook pictures that our children must study. Dr. Cuozzo took cephalometric radiographic pictures of the Neandertal skulls and made a startling discovery. All the models and pictures of Neandertal skulls, that we have access to, have been altered.

When you go to the orthodontist, and he takes one of those x-rays of your head that allow him to make special measurements, it is a “cephalometric” radiograph. With this x-ray picture, he can precisely establish the way your teeth should come together (occlusion) in relationship to your jaw joint (temporomandibular joint). Dr. Cuozzo was able to precisely locate the position of Neandertal’s teeth in relationship to his (or her) jaw joint with these radiographs.

His startling discovery was that in every picture and model we have, the lower jaw had been dislocated and thrust forward as much as an inch to give the erroneous impression that Neandertals had a lower face that stuck out (prognathism) like a monkey’s lower jaw. When Dr. Cuozzo put the jaw back where it belonged, the Neandertals had a facial profile like modern man!

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them…And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day (Genesis 1:27, 31).

The Evolutionary Tree Of Life

Those textbook pictures of the “tree” with a “simple” cell at the base and then lines going up into more and more complex plants and animals are a fraud. Take one of those pictures and erase the connecting trunk and branches. What you have left is a bunch of plants and animals scattered over a page that have no apparent familial relationship to each other at all. Some very creative evolutionists came up with these “tree of life” pictures to create the illusion that all living organisms are related to each other. These misleading textbook pictures have been successfully used to convince people that evolution is true and all living things are connected.

The reason they have the empty trunk and branches, with animals and plants only at the tips, is because the in-between forms (transitional forms) are nowhere to be found. These are called The Missing Links. The Missing Links are called missing links, first and foremost, because they are missing. They are not there! So the textbooks draw in the connecting lines to give us the illusion that the missing links are not really missing. This is textbook fraud! As the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould wrote in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms [As far as this writer can tell, all Gould is saying with these big words is that the missing links are, in reality, actually missing. I think the missing links have been renamed “transitional forms” by the evolutionists because they do not appear to be as missing when the word “transitional” is utilized. But they are still missing. No one has found a direct link between fish and amphibian or cold-blooded reptile to warm-blooded mammal, etc.—Ed.] in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.

So the textbook pictures of the “tree of life” show fully formed animals and plants, which are not evolving out of anything or into anything. In reality, they show exactly what the Bible teaches: God created each life-form after its own kind and there is nothing in between (except the imagination and inferences of the evolutionist).

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so….”

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw it was good.... And God made the beasts after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:11, 21, 25).

The Building Blocks Of Life

If you went to college in the fifties, you will remember the cheering professors when Stanley Miller and Harold Urey announced that they had formed the building blocks of life in their laboratory. Dr. Wells writes:

There were problems, however. Scientists were never able to get beyond the simplest amino acids in their simulated primordial environment, and the creation of proteins began to seem not a small step, or a couple of steps, but a great, perhaps impassable divide.

The telling blow to the Miller-Urey experiment, however, came in the 1970’s, when scientists began to conclude that the Earth’s early atmosphere was nothing like the mixture of gases used by Miller and Urey. Instead of being what scientists call a “reducing,” or hydrogen rich environment, the Earth’s early atmosphere probably consisted of gases released by volcanoes. Today there is near consensus among geochemists on this point. But put those volcanic gases in the Miller-Urey apparatus, and the experiment doesn’t work—in other words, no “building blocks” of life.

What do textbooks do with this inconvenient fact? By and large, they ignore it and continue to use the Miller-Urey experiment.... [But] they don’t tell students that the researchers themselves now acknowledge that the explanation still eludes them.160

For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold (hold back, suppress) the truth in unrighteousness.... Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:18, 21, 22).

Some Concluding Comments To This Chapter

Listed here are a few documented frauds foisted on our children in their textbooks and by their teachers who believe with unquestioning faith in the unsupported theory of macroevolution. Our children are being taught the religious worldview of Humanism (and Marxism) with its indispensable foundation—evolution. It is high time these perpetrators of fraud are held accountable! Why is this kind of blatant fraud winked at and tolerated by the esteemed ranks of academia?

The conflict between the ideas of creation and those of evolution are rooted in a major clash of worldviews. Our worldview is our basic set of beliefs. The values that we hold dear are a direct result of our worldview. Proverbs 23:7 tells us that “...For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.” What we believe about our existence will either spring up out of a biblical Christian worldview or out of one of the humanistic worldviews with their foundation of atheism and a billions-of-years-old universe.

Evolutionists and Creationists study exactly the same fossils. There is not a creationist set of fossils and an entirely different set of evolutionist fossils! The same holds true for the study of living animals. A creationist will not study animals that are any different from the animals examined by the evolutionist. We both study the same fossils, animals and universe. So, how can such widely different ideas (creation ideas versus evolution ideas) be gotten when educated people study the exact, same information? How can two Ph.D.’s graduate from the same university and one believes in a supernatural creation and the other believes in naturalistic evolution? The answer lies in their worldview. Both people have deeply religious convictions relating to their beliefs about origins. If there is no God, a person is forced to speculate about origins and how we might have gotten here through godless, naturalistic processes. Your worldview glasses determine your beliefs about origins.

OUR IDEAS DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

Our Worldview Assumptions Determine Our Conclusions!

One set of beliefs gives the God of the Bible all the glory. The other belief systems give all the glory to man or to “Mother Nature.” The fraud and deception of the evolutionary community robs our Heavenly Father of His glory and steals the praise reserved for Him alone (Isaiah 48:11)! These false worldviews lead us away from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). Unfortunately, we are a people—even many in the church—who have been taken captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, and the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8).

The Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the God of the impossible! Nothing is too difficult for him. He can speak the cosmos into existence, form man from dust and form woman from a rib (Jeremiah 32:17, 27).

It is the prayer of this author that every reader of this book will realize that they are living out their lives in a faith-based worldview. Either you have placed your faith in the idea of eternal matter, or your faith is resting in the eternal God of the Bible. Either idea has its consequences! Where have you placed your faith and trust concerning your eternal destiny? Never forget that eternity is a very long time compared to this little flick of time we spend on earth! But you can know for sure where you will spend eternity.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord…For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 6:23, 10:13).

155 Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, pp. 19-20. See also his book, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2000).

156 See Creation ex Nihilo, vol. 21, No.2, June-August 1999, p. 56; The Washington Times, January 17, 1999, p. D8; and The Calgary Herald, March 21, 1999, p. D3.

157 See: New Scientist, September 6, 1997, p.23; and Science, vol. 277, September 5, 1997.

158 Also see: M. Richardson, et al., “There is no Highly Conserved Stage in the Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development,” Anatomy and Embryology, 1997, 196(2): 91-106.

159 Ricki Lewis, Douglas Gaffin, Marielle Hoefnagels and Bruce Parker, Life (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2002), p.329.

160 Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” p.20.