Charles Darwin’s name is known in almost every household. He’s the “fellow who invented evolution,” some might say. While that may not be entirely true, his name and evolution are uniquely joined together. His favorite and “most convincing argument” was and is stated in these unique words: Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny. In preparing his book, “Origin of Species,” he rated it as “second to none in proof of evolution.”
What is this powerful proof of biological evolution? And, what do those strange words mean? Is the debate over, and is evolution now a fact of science? Is his argument valid? Is his “formula” a valid one?
Embryology is a study of the developing embryo. Darwin believed that if you could study the development of the child within the womb, the various “stages” of evolution could be seen.
Ernst Haeckel, an advocate of evolution, drew pictures illustrating his theories. Since man – according to this theory – had his origin from lower forms of life, including marine life, he knew that the human embryo would have to possess characteristics of their “fish” ancestry. However, to his dismay, the human embryo does not have “gill slits” like fish. He was so convinced that his viewpoint was true, he did a shocking thing. When drawing pictures of the developing embryo to print in a book, he just inserted the “gill slits”, though in so doing he was falsifying his own “evidence.”
As a result Haeckel was discredited and disgraced. His own colleagues rejected his credentials, and the pet theory of Darwin suffered one more setback. The
view that Ontogeny (the development of the individual) repeats or recapitulates Phylogeny (the development of the race or the species) is now a rejected theory.
In 1952, noted Harvard Biology professor George Gaylord Simpson published a textbook on Biology and Evolution. He was so well known for his belief in and defense of evolution that he was commonly called “Mr. Evolution”. In his textbook he examined the Embryology connection to evolution. He stated:
“It is now firmly established that Ontogeny does not recapitulate Phylogeny.”
In other words, Darwin’s “most convincing argument” is without foundation. It is not true! It is not valid, scientifically or otherwise. The facts argue against it! In a footnote on the same page on which the above quote is found, Simpson also stated:
“Belief in recapitulation became so widespread that it is still evident in some writings about biology and evolution. You should know therefore that it does not really occur.” (Life: An Introduction to Biology, pp. 352-353).
Over one hundred years after that theory was discredited, denied and refuted, many University students in the 1970’s told me their textbooks or their supplementary reading assignments continued to refer to recapitulation as proof of biological evolution. The argument has been shown to be false by competent scientists – even by proponents of evolution. But “recapitulation” still has its believers today. Look up Ernst Haeckel on the Internet and you will find many sites on him, and in them you will find references to the drawings of the human embryo. The drawings themselves are seen in many articles, and many of his own apologists mention the charges of falsification of his drawings.
Why is this worthy of our consideration today? Because, first, in his own words Darwin gave it his endorsement as his “most convincing” argument for Natural Selection and evolution. If his “best argument” is suspect, how can evolution be respected today? Second, because it has not really been discarded. As heretofore stated, it is still given as an argument for evolution. On the campus of Texas State University I met a man who was teaching a religion course but who also accepted the Darwinian theories. In his classes and his writings he ridiculed those who rejected evolution. In a letter to the editor of the Austin-American Statesman he wrote:
“Ontogeny does recapitulate Phylogeny. The conservative view that God zapped life into existence is not mandated by responsible biblical or religious scholarship.”
In one paragraph he used for “evidence” that which is firmly, soundly discredited, and then characterized Christians who reject organic evolution as embracing “archaic”, “anti-intellectual” worldviews.
God created this world, and we need not be intimidated by any expert, scientist, preacher, editor or professor who denies it.
