Skip to comments.Man-to-Monkey Billboards Used to Challenge Evolution
Posted on 05/17/2007 9:02:34 AM PDT by 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
i saw several of these billboards as i drove up Interstate 5 to Oregon last week... i like them...
“”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.”’
Yes it can, since natural selection is environment driven. It’s nice to see fundies accept the theory of evolution.
“we’d be completely happy if they’d just allow a critical evaluation of evolution.”
It is at this point that so many strident evolutionists start sounding like their own caricature of their opposition. Quite ironic, really. I admit that I don’t have the science background to follow a lot of it, but the Darwinists get smacked around rhetorically and logically. I haven’t seen one yet win the argument against an I.D. proponent. If there is video or a transcript out there, I would love to see it. They usually move quickly to ad hominem and other losing pursuits. The entire issue is fascinating from a purely forensic standpoint.
Backwards evolution, or devolution, would seem to be about as likely as “forward” evolution, if everything were up to chance encounters and “natural selection”.
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.
Result, no net gain.
I don’t think that states it quite right. Evolution dictates that the the mutations with the advantages live (reproduce enough to survive), while the others die off.
No problem. Join right in. But this is where the "critical evaluation of evolution" is taking place, not the high schools:
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Forensic Science International
Human Molecular Genetics
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature Reviews Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Trends in Genetics
“where are all the living transitional forms that are evolving into other forms?”
Well, look at the Orchard Oriole and Baltimore Oriole for one example.
And biologists are constantly finding new species- unlikely that they were there ever since the Flood and no biologist noticed- perhaps they are truly new?
I’ll look for the billboards, they sound cool.
Another ignoramus pretending to be an expert.
The billboards sound like fun though.
Not really. Assuming evolution, and using it as the philosophical lens through which you interpret data is not the same as “critical evaluation”. In any other field but science, it would be classified as “circular reasoning”.
Evolution is junk/demokkkrat science, with or without monkeys.
“Using that logic, the human race could be receding to a more primitive form,”
Gore and his acolytes are making the case that humans are incapable of adapting to a temperature change of a decree and a half. Temperature deviates, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of us die.
If Darwin and Gould are anywhere near right, those left will be better fitted to the warmer clime.
Worst case, nobody survives and we join the Neandertals in some future museum case. Assuming that Gore, Darwin, and Gould are right.
Scientific Evolution is a fact, but it’s not how we got here.
I’m arguing history, not science. Although based on the scientific theory of evolution, I predict that within 200 million years, it will be nearly impossible to distinguish between species, because there will be so many living “transitional forms”.
Historically, when the slightly better humans come along, it never seems to eliminate the slightly-less humans. We can still find humans of all stages of “evolution”. There’s no reason to expect any different in the future. The same would be true for most species, just because there are some better-suited offspring doesn’t mean all the other members of the species will stop breeding.
So after Evolution has had 200 million years to operate, there will be a steady trail of living forms from what we have today to the new “species” that have evolved over that 200 million years.
Evolutionists will certainly now explain why we don’t already see that in today’s world, although the answer is pretty obvious.
With a Madison Avenue twist. When do we move down so we can have clean cups?
Hey Doc, figure the odds that your detractor opened even one of the links you provided.
Don’t be too quick to laugh at the man-to-monkey concept. The human population is currently undergoing a good deal of DEvolution which is being driven by socialism == policies of taking from the competent to give to the incompetent, resulting in rising birth rates among the incompetent and dropping birth rates among the competent.