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.
Ever notice how many people need glasses to correct their vision?
That's a good one! I've never even heard of "scientific evolution".
Visit the public housing projects of any large city, or the trailer parks of any meth-infested rural area, and you'll see plenty of "transitional forms" who are well on their way back to apehood. Visit a cutting-edge biotech firm, top performing private equity firm, or top-performing marketing technology firm (think Google, eBay), and you'll see plenty of "transitional forms" who are well on their way to leaving the mainstream of the current human population hopelessly behind them. Needless to say, these two groups stopped interbreeding long ago, and may well cease to be able biologically able to do so in due course.
It used to. Until socialism was invented.
There are a number of defects that human beings have scattered throughout the gene pool, of which less than perfect vision may be one of only minor importance. Eugenics would work on human beings just as well as it does on any other organism that that reproduces by recombining genetic material. The ones more highly adapted to the immediate environment, have a reproductive advantage over those less well adapted. But that means the less highly adapted die off before reproducing, thus eliminating ALL their genetic heritage, not just the poor adaptations.
I use it to distinguish it from “historical evolution”.
To take an extreme view, for example. Suppose there is a God, and he can create the universe. If so, he can certainly create the universe in any manner he wants. If he also wanted people to believe in him of their own free will, and NOT because the evidence was irrefutable, he could have created a universe in which evolution occurs, and then created the planet with “evidence” of past evolution, not so much that it is irrefutable, but enough to provide plausibility to those who want to find a way to reject God.
Such a creation would be consistant with “scientific evolution”, but historical evolution would be false, while also being a rational explanation for what we see.
It’s like if there is a pencil on the floor, and another 11 sitting on a table above the floor falling out of a box of a dozen pencils.
A rational explanation for the observation is that the pencil on the floor rolled off the edge, and fell to the floor by gravity, a known scientific principle.
However, maybe I put the pencil on the floor. If so, the “rational explanation” would also be false. It would be a scientifically valid possibility for how the pencil got there, but in the end would be historically wrong.
I realise most true believers in evolution are certain of the origins as they see it explained by evolution, and no matter how many times the “origins” historical record is modified to fit the new scientific discoveries, they will still believe the “origins” historical story as gospel truth.
But I also think that, if we focused our evolutionary teaching in public schools to the actual science of evolution, with mutations and variations and how they COULD lead to changes in species, with the historical record of fossils, but without the speculation as to how we got from “there to here”, or how “there” happened, we could largely remove the entire evolution/creation debate from our schools without a significant sacrifice of necessary scientific teaching or literacy.
Leave origins to the scientists who think it’s important to spend their life studying, and to the philosophers and religionists who take heart in the concepts. Science can peacefully coexist with the unwashed religious masses, and we don’t have to have a holy war.
So aborigines are “post-socialism”?
One day these idiots will be purged from the discourse. Their particularly stupid argument has the disadvantage of throwing us into with the animals even more. I was crestfallen to see that three of our candidates are still unclear on this issue. Anyone with any schooling knows how Darwin (who was not perfect, there’s been a lot of study since then) believed evolution to be proof of God’s majesty. Would we rather our God be an architect or a mechanic?
It might be interesting to see billboards challenging Guth’s inflation hypothesis.
I opened 5 (so far), and I plan on saving this list for future reference.
Thanks for the links Coyoteman.
So you believe that this is science? I think this is the beginning of the error of calling evolution science. What you have is evidence that may be used in a court, but it is not science.
Ping for list...
I would have liked the billboard better if the man on the far left was AlGore.
I can see how, in a natural environment, individual organisms that compete successfuly win the opportunity to reproduce, and individual organisms that fail the competition do not; hence the successful competitors pass their genes along to the next generation.
What I don't really understand is where the different genes (the ones that gave certain individuals that competitive advantage) came from in the first place. Evolution requires a mutagen, and so far I haven't seen that we've found it, or fully explained why we don't need it.
In the interest of full disclosure I should tell you that I'm a bible-believing Christian, and do in fact believe that there is a Creator (the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus) who is ultimately responsible for it all. Still, God's universe is full of natural phenomena, and there's no reason to believe that the mechanism He used for Creation isn't one of these phenomena.
Based on my first two paragraphs, I see a weakness in this theory for speciation purely as a function of natural selection. Yes, natural selection occurs; but all the dots aren't connected for speciation. Something's missing from the equation.
“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.
No, I believe that “gravity” is a known scientific principle. Likewise, the principles of mutation and selection and dna combination all have aspects that are purely scientific in nature, that are observable and recreatable.
You are correct though that as you go beyond that, you enter forensic science, which we call “science” but has the nature of giving false results without being “wrong”.
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”.
When my numbers win
the lottery, I'll put up
floating point numbers
and urge the world to return
to just integers!
“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,....”
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.
Read up on speciation. I don’t have time to write you a primer on evolutionary genetics.
Obviously you haven't seen the movie, "Idiocracy."
I apologize for underestimating you.
“Ever notice how many people need glasses to correct their vision?
Poor eyesight does not inhibit reproduction. It may even assist it!
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.
As does beer.