When I Consider!
Although claims of ape-to-man links frequently make headlines, rarely is it even mentioned, as these claims invariably are proven false. One of many examples of the poor quality of evidence used to support evolution is the single tooth commonly known as Nebraska Man. This tooth was publicized a genuine “missing link” and was used as evidence during the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Dayton, Tennessee. A vivid reconstruction was commissioned, based on the only evidence-a single tooth found in Nebraska and a few supposed tools. This was one of the main pieces of hard evidence used to swing public opinion in favor of evolution and riducule the biblical account of creation. Later excavations uncovered the rest of the remains and found that it was not the tooth of a man, an ape, or an ape-man. The new discovery did not receive the publicity it had received when it was presented as a missing link, leaving most people with the impression that an ape-to-man link had been found.
Nebraska Man
The single tooth, used mightily to shake the public’s confidence in the Word of God, actually turned out to be the tooth of an extinct wild pig.
Interestingly, every ape-to-man link used to support evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial has since been debunked or withdrawn. Despite this lack of evidence, the dogma of evolution continues to be taught as if it were a fact of science.
The Illustrated Origins, Answer Book, P.36
O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge– (1Ti 6:20 NKJV)
“Evidence From Anthropology”, July 3, from A Closer Look at the Evidence, Richard and Tina Kleiss
Related Articles:
“Nebraska Man” revisited, by Ian Taylor
One Dead Bigfoot, Six Teeth, One Big Hoax, by John UpChurch
Faith and Sense in the Origins Debate, Creation Moments
Lee's Birdwatching Adventures Plus 
It’s simply not true that Nebraska man was used as evidence in the Scopes trial. It does appear in the play and movie – but those are fictionalized and obviously flawed. The painting mocked in your illustration appeared in a popular magazine, not a scientific journal, and was accompanied by this caption:
“Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature’s form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.” (Smith 1922)
Finally, many scientists expressed doubt that the tooth came from an ape, and it was scientists, not creationists, who showed that it really belonged to a fossil pig. Scientific ‘truths’ are tentative and subject to change – and that’s okay.
LikeLike
This was an article from
A Closer Look at the Evidence
, Richard and Tina Kleiss, but I did quote it. Nebraska Man’s “evidence” was released during the time of the trial. I can’t find proof either way whether it was actually used in the trial, but it helped sway opinions at that time.
Your final remark is what I find very interesting. “it was scientists, not creationists, who showed that it really belonged to a fossil pig.” Two things, 1- who says creationists are not scientist. Most of your greatest scientist of the past were creationists. A true scientist is suppose to test and observe, etc. (I am not a scientist) but many today decide what is right or wrong by the writings of someone else and not the evidence. 2 – Evidence is evidence. Just because an “evolutionary scientist” found it, does not change the evidence. We all have the same evidence, but how we interpret it is where the difference lies.
LikeLike