Because the Bible says in Genesis 1:24-27 "Then God said, 'Let the earth produce living creatures according to their KINDS: livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their KINDS.' And so it was. So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, 'Let US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.' So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female."
Since when do we change scientific theories based on what religious texts say?
The scientific establishment has told the lie long enough. Fossils aren't factual evidence that connects humans to apes or monkeys.
Why aren't fossils evidence?
If this is true of apes/monkeys to man, why don't we see evidence of transitional fossils being found tying every species together?
Darwin already explained it 150 years ago.
"The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature. We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html
The reason why we don't have finely graduated intermediate fossils for every single lineage is the same reason why we don't have an archeological record for every single day in the life of Charlemagne. The processes that create fossils [are] spotty, at best. This is compounded by the fact that we have only searched a tiny, infinitesimal portion of the fossil record.
