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.
“這些圖像完全與事實相反，讀者可以從參考[1]就可發現，真正各類動物胚胎發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: “我們應該...不感到驚訝，Haeckel的圖像會進進入19世紀的教科書。問題是，我們做了什麼，我想，有應該既驚訝又羞愧,這整個世紀盲目重印這些圖像，導致這些圖像持續的出現在大量，如果不是多數，在現代的教科書上！ “