As Blackwell (Am Biol Teach 69:135–136, 2007) pointed out, multiple authors have attempted to discredit Haeckel, stating that modern embryological studies have shown that Haeckel’s drawings are stylized or embellished. More importantly, though, it has been shown that the discussion within the scientific community concerning Haeckel’s drawings and the question of whether embryonic similarities are convergent or conserved have been extrapolated outside the science community in an attempt to discredit Darwin and evolutionary theory in general (Behe in Science 281:347–351, 1998; Blackwell in Am Biol Teach 69:135–136, 2007; Pickett et al. in Am Biol Teach 67:275, 2005; Wells in Am Biol Teach 61:345–349, 1999; Icons of evolution: science or myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2002). In this paper, we address the controversy surrounding Haeckel and his work in order to clarify the line between the shortcomings and the benefits of his research and illustrations. Specifically, we show that while his illustrations were not perfect anatomical representations, they were useful educational visualizations and did serve an important role in furthering studies in embryology.

中文翻译：

---

恩斯特·海克尔（Ernst Haeckel）对Evo-Devo和科学辩论的贡献：针对创造论者的指责，重新评估了海克尔在美国教科书中有争议的插图。

正如布莱克威尔（Black Bio）（Am Biol Teach 69：135–136，2007）所指出的那样，多位作者试图抹黑Haeckel，指出现代胚胎学研究表明Haeckel的绘画风格化或装饰化。但是，更重要的是，已经表明，科学界内部关于海克尔绘画的讨论以及胚胎相似性是趋同还是守恒的问题已经在科学界之外进行了推断，以试图抹黑一般的达尔文和进化论（Behe参见《科学》 281：347-351，1998；布莱克韦尔在《生物学教学》 69：135-136，2007； Pickett等人在《生物学教学》 67：275，2005；《威尔在生物学教学61：345-349》，1999；进化的偶像：科学还是神话？为什么我们关于进化的许多教导是错误的（Regnery Publishing，华盛顿，2002年）。在本文中，我们解决围绕Haeckel及其工作的争议，以阐明缺点和研究与插图带来的好处之间的界线。具体而言，我们证明了尽管他的插图不是完美的解剖学表现形式，但它们是有用的教育可视化，并且确实在促进胚胎学研究中发挥了重要作用。