Earth-shattering news of May 15th?

has nothing to do with it.
It's the "scientists" drawing the "conclusions" about what it is and what it means, that's corrupt.

Science is corrupt.
Because the "scientists" getting "public or foundation funding"(most of them) strive to make politically-motivated conclusions, based on what their funding agencies want them to produce.
Oh, you doubt that?
Just take a look at the "global warming" scam, and the NIST report about 9/11, the "fluoride debacle", the "eggs are bad for you", the "cheeseburger study", "aspartame is safe", etc etc..
Face it folks, "scientists" are essentially government/foundation(same thing)-funded flunkies who "conclude" what they're told to conclude, in large part.

Oh yes, there are still some good ones who aren't. And they are countermanded by the many who are, and the point is to "shout-over" any dissent, so that the 'many many scientists" who support the politically motivated conclusions seem to appeal more on the collectivist level to those who don't know.

These days, "conclusions" by "scientists" are about as reliable and truthful as an interview with Barney Frank.

As an aside, that is one reason you do not find very many Blackfoot christians. The tribe was told that the Earth is between 6 and 14 thousand years old.

The tribe has itself recorded the last 33,000 or so winters that it has gone through.

So christianity didn't make much sense to them....

Not true, they can have offspring, although probably not viable if it has the head of a great dane and the body of a small dog. But this does not demonstrate speciation, instead all that you have demonstrated is that a wild dog has the capacity to produce both a great dane and a small dog, but a great dane or a small dog is not capable of giving rise to a wild dog. It would be this latter case that would demonstrate evolution. What we see is the oposite. There is a loss of genetic information and not an increase in genetic information.
grant

That concept doesn't make sense nor is it scientifically possible in nature based on a theory of evolution. For monkeys and humans to share a common ancestor, that ancestor would have had to have a superior set of genes at a higher level than both humans and monkeys for them to have been selected from. In nature there is no evidence of this in the fossil record.
When a group is faced with a situation near their survival boundary, there is always less genetic material in the gene pool of that population as non-viable genotypes are eliminated. This always leads to an inferior offspring or extinction and never gives rise to an increase in genetic variability. Mutations are "always" a result of a loss of genetic variability. Unless there is an outside introduction of new genetic material, such that requires manipulation that demonstrates the action of a Creator.
By the way there is no such thing as races in humans, we are all part of the human race. Unless you are going to tell me that because someone whose phenotype expresses gigantism cannot produce viable offspring with someone whose phenotype expresses dwarfism. These are just variations within the group and not a different race.
grant