The creativity of a 19th century evolutionist

Ernst Haeckel

DOWN'S SYNDROME is a chromosomal disorder found in certain babies. Not so very long ago it was better known as mongolism. The reason for this is that in the 20th century evolutionary science held to the view that as the embryo develops it recapitulates the supposed evolution of the species from its more primitive forms. A baby found to be suffering from Down's syndrome was thought to be under-developed, having reached only the stage of development of the (supposedly) inferior Mongol peoples.

It sounds staggeringly inept, frighteningly racist and staggers belief. Yet that is why until surprisingly recently the word mongol was used to refer both to people of a particular Chinese ethnic origin and those suffering from Down's syndrome. 

One of the chief popularisers of this so called biogenetic law or recapitulation theory was the Professor of Zoology at Jena, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). His 1868 History of Creation popularised and extended Darwinism. He denied being a materialist but much of what he said sounded very much like it. He coined the now familiar term ecology and in his best selling Riddle of the Universe he claimed that plants were conscious. It is perhaps understandable that one of his followers declared that Haeckel's name would become a shining symbol that would 'glow for centuries'. 

However, the recapitulation theory, though warmly greeted at first, was not set to last for long. The theory is often summarised in the phrase 'ontology recapitulates phylogeny'. The idea was that the various stages of human evolution are observable as a fast forward re-run in the development of the human embryo. Thankfully this nonsense has long been discredited and is no longer acceptable to modern scientists. 

Haeckel was an atheist. He endeavoured to apply Darwinist principles in politics and society. He has been described as attempting to synthesise 'romantic folkism with scientific evolutionism'. Through his later Monist league he was a major ideologist for racism and nationalism. His likely influence on the future author of Mein Kampf (`My struggle') cannot be overlooked. Thankfully, however, the horrendous racism of the Third Reich has also been rejected on a large scale. 

On the other hand, if you pick up a modern edition of Gray's Anatomy or a textbook such as Scott Gilbert's Developmental Biology you will find that they contain drawings based on Haeckel's 1874 work that purport to show embryos of various species all looking remarkably similar in their early stages of development. 

However, it seems that this part of Haeckel's legacy is no more trustworthy than his recapitulation theory and scientists are being slowly awakened to the fact. Haeckel, if we may put it this way, was rather creative in his efforts to promote an evolutionary view. Last summer an essay appeared in the journal Anatomy and Embryology by Dr Michael Richardson of St George's Hospital Medical School in London. There he says (according to The Times) 

This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry.

He describes the drawings as 'misleading and inaccurate' or, in the vernacular, 'fakes'. 

Dr Richardson has put together an international team of experts to demonstrate the inaccuracy of Haeckel's drawings and it seems that this particular plank of evolutionary theory is being abandoned for good. Of course, for Bible believing Creationists there are few surprises here. As long ago as 1989, in his book The Long War Against God, Henry Morris wrote that even in his own lifetime Haeckel was

forced to admit that he had "Schematised" (or better "fabricated") the famous series of sketches supposedly showing that the embryos of all mammals (including man) are essentially identical for some time after conception. These fallacious drawings have been reproduced in text after text since they were first developed by Haeckel as part of his atheistic propaganda.

But, of course, no-one listens to Creationists and their crack-pot ideas! 

We do not suppose that all evolutionists are crooks. Nevertheless, their blind faith in an unbiblical and atheistic theory does leave them susceptible to being hoodwinked in this way. If Dr Richardson was angry when he realised that Haeckel had deceived him, how will he feel when he realises that the whole evolutionary theory, to which he continues to be committed, is built on sand? How we should weep in compassion for those who have believed this lie.
This article first appeared in Grace magazine

Creation - Film Review

The film Creation currently showing in British cinemas will catch the attention of thoughtful people. Its ‘creation’ is not that of Genesis 1, but the creation of the famous book published 150 years ago this November. The film, based on Annie’s Box by Randal Keynes, traces the writing of On the origin of species by Charles Darwin from its final year of gestation up to the dispatch of a completed manuscript to the publisher.
Partly using flashbacks to build up the biographical picture, Darwin is portrayed as an attractive though flawed individual. The film particularly focuses on his inner struggles over Origin’s publication. Various factors delay and then spur the manuscript’s progress. While urged to publish by friends like Hooker and Huxley, his wife Emma’s approval is much more hard won. Then there is the letter from Alfred Wallace outlining the same theory, Darwin’s apparently psychosomatic illness and his fear of unleashing an idea into society that could ‘destroy’ even God himself. Interwoven with it all is his relationship with Annie, the favourite daughter whose early death affects him so profoundly.
A film about a man writing a book is potentially dull, but those involved in Creation are seasoned professionals like film director Jon Amiel. The combination of skilful writing, fine acting – especially from lead actors, husband and wife team Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly – beautiful sets, good music and high production standards make this a powerful production indeed.
There are anachronisms, and doubtful dramatic devices and even straight errors of fact, but a production like this is intended to create an impression rather than get every detail right.

Wrong message
No, the film should not be criticised for those faults, but for something far more fundamental – its whole take on evolution. The film’s subliminal message is: yes, there are extremists in the scientific world, among evolutionists too (Thomas Huxley is portrayed as a most unattractive character). But there are also extremists among religionists. Rev. Innes, the vicar of Downe, makes Annie kneel in rock salt scarring her knees as a penance for believing dinosaurs existed! Eventually, he will not even speak to Darwin.
But most of us – or so the film implies – are there in the middle trying not to be unreasonable. In this category, on the one hand, is Darwin himself, along with his close friend Joseph D. Hooker. They have no desire to cause trouble and simply want to know the truth. They are fearful of public reaction, yet capable of quiet courage. On the other, there are gentle, pious people like Emma Darwin, who respect their minister and read Pilgrim’s progress to their children.
These (or us, as the film seems to quietly preach) sometimes feel estranged from cutting-edge scientists and their strange ideas, but if we will only consider the situation carefully and trust them we will soon realise they are right. Like Emma who, on reading the Origin manuscript through, finally unbends to give Charles her blessing, we will see the light and stop all the carping. But the trouble with all of that is that it is woefully inaccurate and dreadfully untrue. Even though Darwin had positive qualities, his theory of evolution was then and remains now both scientifically wrong and essentially anti-God.
What the late Henry Morris described in his book on the history of evolutionary theories as The long war against God continues to this day; this film is the latest salvo in that war. We need to point this out to the naive and reject the caricatures that underlie productions like this.

This article originally appeared in Evangelical Times.