David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 24 (1):147-154 (2009)
Through the last half of the nineteenth century and the ﬁrst part of the twentieth, no scientist more vigorously defended Darwinian theory than the German Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919). More people learned of the new ideas through his voluminous publications, translated into numerous languages, than through any other source, including Darwin’s own writings. He enraged many of his contemporaries, especially among the religiously orthodox; and the enmity between evolutionary theory and religious fundamentalism that still burns brightly today may in large measure be attributed to Haeckel’s unremitting attacks on the ingressions of religion into science. Though he retained a life-long friendship with and the support of Darwin, some in the scientiﬁc community who were critical of evolutionary theory—Emil Du Bois-Reymond, Rudolf Virchow, and Louis Agassiz, for instance—accused him of deception. That charge has been renewed in our time based on seemingly incontrovertible evidence. In a Science magazine article published in 1997, ‘‘Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,’’ Haeckel, was indicted of having intentionally misrepresented embryological development (Pennisi 1997). The article reported that the work of Michael Richardson and his colleagues demonstrated this malfeasance through a comparison of Haeckel’s illustrations of early-stage embryos with photographs of the same species at a comparable stage (see Fig. 1). The photos showed embryos of various species that differed among themselves and certainly from Haeckel’s images. The differences were striking and the implication obvious: fraudulent misrepresentation. Richardson, as quoted in the article, afﬁrmed the charge: ‘‘It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology’’
|Keywords||Philosophy Evolutionary Biology Philosophy of Biology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Stephen Jay Gould (2003). The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister's Pox: Mending the Gap Between Science and the Humanities. Jonathan Cape.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. S. MacKenzie (1895). Book Review:Monism, as Connecting Religion and Science. Ernst Haeckel. [REVIEW] Ethics 5 (3):403-.
Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel (1900). The Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century. Grosse Pointe, Mich.,Scholarly Press.
Mario A. Di Gregorio (2002). Reflections of a Nonpolitical Naturalist: Ernst Haeckel, Wilhelm Bleek, Friedrich Müller and the Meaning of Language. Journal of the History of Biology 35 (1):79 - 109.
Robert Richards (2007). Ernst Haeckel's Alleged Anti-Semitism and Contributions to Nazi Biology. Biological Theory 2 (1):97-103.
Robert J. Richards, The Foundation of Ernst Haeckel's Evolutionary Project in Morphology, Aesthetics, and Tragedy.
David H. DeGrood (1965). Haeckel's Theory of the Unity of Nature. Boston, Christopher Pub. House.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads71 ( #60,394 of 1,907,520 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #197,471 of 1,907,520 )
How can I increase my downloads?