Your thinking has been well taken. The question could clarify the point a step further. Many evolutionists know that it was a forgery and also know that the forgery is complete opposite to the embryonic fact; however, they still believe in that Haeckel’s concept is in line with evolutionism. They are trying to mend the concept using concept such as strong recapitulation and weak recapitulation. This is exactly the argument of the California Academy of Science, evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott, in defending the need of continuing including the forgery in the textbooks.

Please verify the following statements in my article to see if they are true or not:

1. It was a forgery

2. The embryonic fact are completely opposite to the idea they are trying to establish by comparing the Haeckel’s drawing s to the embryonic facts.

Please visit http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v22/i4/p50_embryo.jpg, the first row of drawings are Haeckel’s early stage of embryonic images and the second row of pictures are the real embryonic early-stage images.
“这些图像完全与事实相反，读者可以从参考[1]就可发现，真正各类动物胚胎发展的初期是非常的不同。”

3. a.The false drawings are still printing in the textbooks today that Haeckel’s fake drawings have been used to promote evolution (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel_1.html)

b.Please visit the web site of the Ref. 1 again to see the 10 text books and explanation

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos? Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute, March 27, 2007 (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3935&program=CSC&printerFriendly=true)

c. Please also verify the confession of Stephen Jay Gould: “我们应该...不感到惊讶，Haeckel的图像会进进入19世纪的教科书。问题是，我们做了什么，我想，有应该既惊讶又羞愧,这整个世纪盲目重印这些图像，导致这些图像持续的出现在大量，如果不是多数，在现代的教科书上！ “