Man-to-Monkey Billboards Used to Challenge Evolution

Cybercast News Service ^ | May 17, 2007 | Randy Hall

[Sopater]

(CNSNews.com) - Billboards that show a man turning into a monkey and an online game entitled "Let's See How Evolution Works" are two elements of a new national campaign launched by a Christian group to call attention to the "lack of proof" for the theory of evolution.

Billboards at six locations in Oregon and Georgia ask "Are They Making a Monkey Out of You?" and additional signs are planned for Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, according to Julie Haberle, founder of the Who Is Your Creator non-profit organization.

The billboards direct viewers to the group's website, which presents a step-by-step summary of evolution and arguments against the theory.

Haberle told Cybercast News Service that the billboards were designed to be "a parody of evolution" since many scientists "now say that the process is not just going forward, it's also going backward."

"It's kind of funny because the theory of evolution is based on chance mutations and natural selection," she said. As a result, "the process can go either way."

Also this week, the site's forum began the "Let's See How Evolution Works" game, in which the hypothetical stages of evolutionary transitions used as proof for the theory are being presented and critiqued.

"If evolution is true, it still must be occurring around us as random mutations would continue to occur," the first posting stated. "So, aside from simple speciation, where are all the living transitional forms that are evolving into other forms?"

In addition, the group is offering $5,000 for the winning submission of a four-part legal opinion that will present the scientific and legal aspects of teaching evolution and creation in public education.

The prize money for this contest, which is intended to educate the public on the need for a critical analysis of evolution, was donated by a retired attorney who also framed the contest rules.

The campaign's goal is to inform people regarding the fact that students "have been brought up believing in evolution as absolute truth" due to what she called "indoctrination in education," Haberle said.

"We're not suggesting that teaching evolution should be tossed out of schools," she asserted, but "while U.S. constitutional law permits 'teaching the controversy,' school boards, judges and legislators are systematically prohibiting educators and schools from presenting any critical analysis of evolution."

"If you want to have the standard of empirical evidence only, then evolution doesn't make the grade," Haberle said. "For that matter, neither does creation. But if they're going to allow the teaching of evolution, they need to allow the teaching of creation, too."

According to an August 2005 Pew Research Center survey, "Americans believe in creation over evolution by a margin of 60 percent to 26 percent, and nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools," she added.

"Probably in a perfect world, both creation and evolution would be taught in philosophy classes, not science courses," Haberle said. However, "we'd be completely happy if they'd just allow a critical evaluation of evolution."

The current campaign is not the first time the Minnesota-based group has sought to bring the creation-evolution debate to the public's attention. Last December, the group put up billboards in Minneapolis and Duluth, Minn., with the message, "Everyone has an opinion on evolution. Read ours. Post yours," at the organization's website.

"That effort was a test to get the ball rolling and see what would happen," Haberle said. "It was surprising how much press we got from it, literally all over the world."

However, the first campaign also drew a negative reaction from the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), which listed the group as one of the "Threats to Evolution Education" in Minnesota.

"How silly that they would think we are a threat unless they don't want the public to know the truth," said Haberle, who added that she considers the listing of her organization by AIBS a "most prized accomplishment."

Dr. Holly Menninger of the AIBS Public Policy Office responded on Wednesday that "evolution is central to science and vital to public health."

"Indeed, scientists, students, educators and policymakers recently gathered in Washington, D.C., to hear leading doctors and researchers explain how their studies of evolution have led to critical advancements in medicine and the development of treatments for diseases like cancer," Menninger told Cybercast News Service.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education -which has as its motto "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools" - also took exception with the Who Is Your Creator campaign.

"Contrary to what the group claims, evolution is a central and unifying principle of the biological sciences, accepted by the scientific community on the basis of overwhelming evidence - for which garish billboards are not a valid substitute," Branch told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.

"By the way, the billboard captures the scientific illiteracy of Who Is Your Creator nicely," he added. "That's an ape in the last panel, not a monkey."

Make media inquiries or request an interview with Randy Hall.

Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.

E-mail a comment or news tip to Randy Hall.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Copyright 1998-2006 Cybercast News Service

[geopyg]

“I might be sorry I asked, but to you care to expand upon this premise?”

LOL! I’m envisioning Archie Bunker in his chair smoking a cigar talking with “Meat Head” :

“Well, Whitey ya see - he’s on top,....”

[CharlesWayneCT]

It wasn’t a scientific statement, nor perfectly accurate. What I mean is that typical examples of human evolutionary “progress” given do not manifest themselves in the entire population of humanity.

Things which are obviously improvements don’t wipe out the population of those without the improvements, and things that are obviously traits that make us weaker have not disappeared from our genetic pool.

Once you get past the historically documented history, we have speculation about things that have changed, but that’s what we are arguing about (like did we use to have tails). What I’m saying is if you look at the documented historical life of humanity, over the few thousands of years we have a reasonable understanding of our history, we still see today living examples of “humans” from the various “evolutionary” forms humans have taken that are clearly examples of how mutations can be selected and lead to “evolution”.

If I try specific examples I might get laughed at, but I don’t care, I’ll go ahead anyway. Like people are getting taller, but there are still lots of short people, there’s even a show about “little people” on TV.

Like aborigines and other populations of humans found that are clearly less “evolved” than “modern” man.

Like hair.

[theFIRMbss]

>“Needless to say, these two groups (brains and trailer trash) stopped interbreeding long ago, and may well cease to be able biologically able to do so in due course.”
>>What is your evidence for that statement? It strikes me as absurd.

The quote you posted
is from post 24, but
your reply's addressed

to post 34.
Is there a deeper meaning
lurking somewhere here?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Read up on speciation. I don’t have time to write you a primer on evolutionary genetics.

[js1138]

Using that logic, the human race could be receding to a more primitive form, about as fast as they are advancing to a higher level.

Obviously you haven't seen the movie, "Idiocracy."

[ASA Vet]

I apologize for underestimating you.

[riverdawg]

“Ever notice how many people need glasses to correct their vision?

Poor eyesight does not inhibit reproduction. It may even assist it!

[GovernmentShrinker]

all the dots aren't connected for speciation. Something's missing from the equation.

Nothing's missing. Translocations are a common cause of infertility, but non-lethal ones can be inherited. All it takes is one breeding pair whose translocations happen to be incompatible with the genome of most members of their species, but compatible with each other's, and you'll start getting perfectly fertile offspring who are only fertile within the subgroup carrying these translocations (i.e. produce no offspring or sterile offspring if they mate with members of the original population). Presto! One species has become two.

[ASA Vet]

Poor eyesight does not inhibit reproduction. It may even assist it!

As does beer.

[Sopater]

...if you look at the documented historical life of humanity, over the few thousands of years we have a reasonable understanding of our history, we still see today living examples of “humans” from the various “evolutionary” forms humans have taken that are clearly examples of how mutations can be selected and lead to “evolution”.

You're talking micro evolution in the sense of physical traits. How do we know that humans are getting taller? Some cultures are taller on average than others, would that mean that Europeans are more evolved than Asians? You're not making much sense my friend. As for aborigines, are you talking about "social evolution" here? How are they "clearly less evolved" than the rest of the human race? Are they not capable of interbreeding with the rest of the human race? That would make the genetically on par with the rest of modern humans, would it not?

[Sopater]

Accepted. I agree with you that we cannot have an intelligent debate if we don’t listen to the opposition.

Unfortunately, you’re statement was a pretty safe bet for either side of the aisle. All too often people don’t even consider what the other has to say, and have already made up their minds.

[Oberon]

All it takes is one breeding pair whose translocations happen to be incompatible with the genome of most members of their species, but compatible with each other's...

And which conveys a competitive advantage, or at least isn't a disadvantage...or your new species will get eaten by a predator or otherwise outcompeted within a short while, and that's the end of the new species.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

LOL!

[DungeonMaster]

When science can give a perfectly rational explanation for something and be completely wrong about it, that is beyond what most people think of when they hear “science”.

People often use the concepts of scientific method to define science. This is where they are just not correct. Science is knowledge which is truth. There are places where you simply can't know the truth you can only try to make a legal case. Origin is the perfect example.

Suppose God made Adam and you are there with all of your instruments of measurement. You can conclude that Adam is a human and currently alive but you can not determine how he got there.

Slaves to "science" believe that all knowledge/truth must be able to be reached by their "methods". They are, therefore, lacking knowledge. They are in the dark.

[shuckmaster]

Thanks for the great links! It’s notable that one side of this debate uses serious scientific educational material while the other side just babbles.

[shuckmaster]

just because there are some better-suited offspring doesn’t mean all the other members of the species will stop breeding.

In severely hard times, the better-suited offspring manage to survive while the other members starve or die of disease before they're old enough to breed.

[Doc Savage]

Evolution is based solely on randomness. At a molecular and DNA level the theory fails. The vast majority of mutations (insertions, tranpositions, deletions) are lethal.
The molecular cascade of A>B>C>D>E>F>G>H>I>J>K etc., to produce a particular pigment protein is impossible via random mutations. Nice try though!

[Marie2]

Well, I have no empirical studies and don’t pretend to, but I’ve known many upper class to “breed” if we must use that term with lower class types. Not an unusual phenomenon at all, actually. So why state as a fact that the brighter don’t “breed” with the dimmer? It’s not true.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Let me know when you find an example of two people from the groups I described actually producing offspring together.

[philetus]

Proof of backwards evolution is evident when you see men get elected to political office and turn into worms, slugs, and bloodsuckers.