This article is based on one section of a PowerPoint presentation that I did for the Design Science Association of Portland in May 2024. The title of the talk was “Evolution’s 14 Greatest Frauds” where Bathybius Haeckelii was listed as fraud #3. The background for this story is provided in Slide #1.
Slide #1
The two participants in this 19th century evolutionist screw-up are seen in slide #2. Huxley’s image is on the left side and Haeckel’s is on the right.
Slide #2
Both men were devout naturalistic evolutionists. Huxley was known as “Darwin’s bulldog” and was especially keen on finding evidence for life from non-life. In Slide #3 is a quote of how Huxley described the Bathybius haeckelii finding to Haeckel on October 6, 1868. Huxley described the glutinous muddy substance found at the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean as “the precursor to life.” Haeckel responded as summarized in Slide #4.
Slide #3
Slide #4
In 1874 Haeckel wrote a glowing article in Nature magazine entitled “Scientific Worthies: Thomas Henry Huxley,” in which he praised Huxley for his contributions to Darwin’s natural selection theory that was published in 1859. And he wrote the words in Slide #5.
Slide #5
From this and other similar writings we find that Haeckel and Huxley were thinking of evolution as a complete and unified theory extending from protoplasm to mankind. This idea is sometimes written as “from goo to you.” In Slide #6 is a representation of Bathybius as a precursor to other “simple” lifeforms at the time. Bathybius is drawn as the three components in the upper left corner of Slide #6.
Slide #6
Was this idea true? Not at all! The truth is summarized in Slide #7, and a magnified view of the precipitate is seen in Slide #8.
Slide #7
Slide #8
How can we criticize the actions of these two influential evolutionists? The synopsis statement is in Slide #9 and Slide #10 is Haeckel’s drawing of a fictional life cycle of a Moneran named Protomya aurantiaca.
Slide #9
Slide #10
Slides #11 and #12 provide the conclusions that logically follow this evolutionist grand mistake. Conclusion A is from Andrew Sibley in the Journal of Creation of April 2009. Conclusion B is my take on the presuppositional conditions that led to, and will continue to lead to, this kind of error.
Slide #11
Slide #12
All of this when there is good evidence that Huxley likely knew early on that Bathybius haeckelii was a total figment of his imagination. The search for abiogenesis is destined to failure as explained in God’s Word.
This article is based on research from several sources. If one should want more detail three of my favorite sources on this topic are:
1. Bergman, Jerry, Evolution’s Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries, Creation Book Publishers, 2017, pp. 53-69.
2. Sibley, Andrew, Journal of Creation, “Bathybius haeckelii and a ‘reign of terror’,” 22(1):123-127, April 2009.
3. Rehbock, Philip F., Isis “Huxley, Haeckel, and the Oceanographers: The Case of Bathybius haeckelii,” 66(4): pp. 504-533, 1975.
J.D. Mitchell
