By completely denying it, like this website (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html). Or, one of my personal favorite comebacks when I confront someone (usually a family member) with strong scientific backing for an idea that doesn't mesh with the religious take: "I will destroy the wisdom of all who claim to be wise. I will confuse those who think they know so much." from I Corinthians. So, basically, God is a cosmic prankster who leaves us faulty evidence and laughs at us behind our backs when we fall for it. Can't argue with that logic!

1) "What creationists think on the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny is necessarily irrelevant, since they do not believe in the second, and the claim that the similarities of ontogenies and phylogenies do not provide evidence for evolution is false, whether you believe in the theory or not." Source: http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_recapitulates_phylogeny/Talk 2) ""Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a now discredited theory in biology first espoused in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel, who called it his "biogenetic law". Ontogeny refers to the development of the embryos of a given species; phylogeny refers to the evolutionary history of a species. The theory, also called the theory of recapitulation, claims that the development of the embryo of every species repeats the evolutionary development of that species." "Connections between ontogeny and phylogeny: Connections between ontogeny and phylogeny can be observed in most species, and it is often the case that an evolutionary development is "replayed" in the development of the embryo. For instance, humans evolved from fish; human embryos pass through a stage with gill-like structures and with webbed fingers. The common ancestor of humans and apes had a tail, and so do human embryos at some stage. Whales are mammals who returned to the sea and lost almost all their hair; whale embryos pass through a stage with hair which is later lost. Critisisms of Haeckel's theory, and modern formulation: Nevertheless, Haeckel's biogenic law of a strong one-to-one correspondence between ontogeny and phylogeny is rejected by modern biology. Human embryos don't look like fish; they look like fish embryos. A modern and more accurate version of the theory therefore claims that the development stages of a species' embryo resemble the embryonic forms of its evolutionary ancestors. But even this is not always correct: sometimes evolutionary stages are "skipped" in the embryo, and occasionally the order of evolutionary stages is reversed, or several stages are mixed in ontogeny. It is not possible to cleanly separate a "fish stage" from an "amphibian stage" from a "mammal stage" in human embryonal development. Explanation: Connections between phylogeny and ontogeny can be explained if one assumes that a species changes into another by a sequence of small modifications to its developmental program (which is specified by the genome). Modifications to the developmental program that affect early steps of the program will require modifications in all later steps and are therefore less likely to succeed. Most successful changes will thus affect the latest stages of the program and will retain earlier steps. Occasionly however, a modification of an earlier step in the program does succeed and that is when violations of the above rule are observed." Source: http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny_recapitulates_phylogeny 3) "Whoever added the statement at the end of the "Rejection" section that stated that Haeckel's drawings were used to support evolution is sorely confused about both the theory of evolution and Haeckel's own theory of recapitulation. Haeckel's theory was a competitor to Darwin's, not in support of it. Haeckel wanted to suggest that somehow the fact that ontogeny seems recapitulate phylogeny means that there is some inevitable drive toward progress that is manifest in both ontogeny and phylogeny. The inevitable, magical nature of Haeckel's progress was what Darwin was opposed to. Thus, Haeckel's recapitulation theory could not have been used to support Darwin's theory of evolution. It's like saying that the Catholic dogma of a Ptolemaic solar system was mistakenly used to support Galileo's theory of heliocentrism." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recapitulation_theory#Misleading_statement_about_recapitulation_theory_being_used_to_support_evolution 4) the creationist view: "Of all Haeckel’s dubious activities, that for which he is most famous, or perhaps most infamous, is his promulgation of the totally erroneous theory that the human embryo is initially identical with that of other mammals and then goes through a series of stages where it has gills like a fish,13 a tail like a monkey, etc. Sometimes called ‘the law of recapitulation’ or Haeckel’s term ‘the biogenetic law’, this idea has been summarized in the mouthful, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, which means the development of the individual embryo repeats its alleged evolutionary history. The first thing to say about this dictum, is that ‘law’ it is not! The idea is now known to be completely false. It is therefore not surprising that Haeckel could not find sufficient anatomical evidence to make his theory convincing. Never one to let lack of evidence stand in his way, Haeckel manufactured the ‘evidence’ by fraudulently changing the drawings of embryos by two other scientists." Source and further information: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

It's a discredited idea - even among evolutionists.