Earlier I asked how one falsifies SETI. I also asked how one falsifies the current evolutionist theory of abiogenesis, the rise of life from an inanimate chemical stew. I was surprised to receive zero answers. I think abiogenesis should not be taught in our schools because it is not scientific. Is anyone else disturbed that it is, or are the concerns only allocated to the teaching of intelligent design theory? Here are some other items that I think we should question being taught in our high schools: o The fraudulent Haeckel embryonic images. In the march 2000 issue of "Natural History," Stephen Jay Gould noted that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and concluded that his drawings are characterized by "inaccuracies and outright falsification." British embryologist Michael Richardson, interviewed by Science after he and his colleagues published their comparisons between Haeckel's drawings and actual embryos, put it bluntly: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology." o Haekel's biogenetic law, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." No research level embryologist accepts this, yet it plants an image in impressionable minds that appears to be very persuasive toward acceptance of evolution of species; o The fraudulent linkage of Haekel's images with von Baer's laws; o Pictures of pepper moths on tree trunks as evidence of natural selection. It turns out that pepper moths do not rest on tree trunks, but hidden under branches. For this picture, the moths (dead or alive) had to be *placed* on the tree trunks and photographed. Yet this picture is endlessly republished to provide evidence for natural selection; o Citation of Darwin's finches as conclusive evidence of speciation induced by natural selection. Someone else in this discussion has acknowledged that this is no longer considered by biologists as a legitimate example. Yet it remains in the textbooks; I'll stop the list here, but there are others. These items are routinely taught to impressionable minds, but are not accepted by the best biologists. Does this concern anyone? Note, for more on this subject I cite Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution," from which some material above is quoted. Jim ---- Jim Cobb jcobb@acm.org