If you're interested in these issues, try http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ which is written by a U of MN prof, PZ Myers.  He doesn't have an assessment of the new study up but he does have a reference on it -- he just finished grading papers.  But he's a fun read, and he tackles current political and religious arguments all the time that intersect with science.

I've often wondered why some people act more like apes than others. This explains it. Their ancestors did some back-sliding.

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, but can someone please tell me again why this "makes more sense" then creationism????  To be philosophical, it seems to me like as a society we have decided that a "fact" is only something that can be proven by science, when in reality all a fact is, is something that an overwhelming majority say is true.  An example would be colors, lets say orange.  If everyone decided one day that orange wasn't orange and instead blue, it would then become a "fact" that it was blue.  The point of this rambling is that perhaps a couple decades ago a group of people decided that religion was no longer rational and that scientific "facts" did not support its claims.  Scientist have stopped looking (if they ever were looking) for evidence that proves religion and instead searching for things that disprove it.  While I generally understand the concept of evolutionary theory and believe parts of it to be true.  Unlike most, however, I don't think religion and evolution are mutually exclusive explanations for our existence.  When hearing about evolution I come up with a lot of questions. For instance, how did evolution start/ what set it into "motion," so to speak?  If things did begin with a large expulsion in the universe then what caused the explosion?  If all things consist of atoms how did the first atom get here?

Oh and does anyone know of any estimates on how long it would have taken for a simple bacteria to mutate and evolve into a human?

I'm not trying to create a fire storm here just trying to throw a few things out there for discussion.

and is not in the purview of science whatsoever. 

Oh, by the way, you really should read AJ Ayer's "Language, Truth and Logic," which argues, among other things, that "To be meaningful, a statement must be either analytic...or capable of being verified."

1.  "when in reality all a fact is, is something that an overwhelming majority say is true" 

Wow.  So when a great majority thought the sun revolved around the earth, that was a fact?  I don't think you really mean that.

2.  "The point of this rambling is that perhaps a couple decades ago a group of people decided that religion was no longer rational and that scientific "facts" did not support its claims"

Wow again.  The Scopes trial was in 1925.  People have been poking fun at religion throughout recorded history -- even so-called religious people have been doing it, labeling a set of beliefs they didn't agree with as superstition or blasphemy.  Hey, even Moses did it (and he killed 'em for it, too -- read Leviticus).  As did the Crusading Christians.

Actually, the polling data on scientists and people of high intelligence looking down on religion goes back a ways -- 1916 at least:  http://www.answers.com/topic/religiosity-and-intelligence

I would highly recommend to anyone who is caught up in the religion/science argument to read some Elaine Pagels.  I say this because many current believers in religion think there is some central truth in Chrfistianity, and an agreed upon history.  Here's a brief taste:  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/opinion/08pagels.html?ex=1302148800&en=baece6c9988972fb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"Wow.  So when a great majority thought the sun revolved around the earth, that was a fact?  I don't think you really mean that."

In that context I will say that my comment was rather rediculous.  I will say this however, when the great majority believed that the sun revolved around the Earth it was a fact in their mind.  Like I said, I fall in between the two beliefs.  I don't think religion and evolution (or science in general) are mutually exclusive explanations.  In my mind, one being right does not mean that the other is completely wrong.  I am not a Christian who reads the Bible literally.  Like I tell several fundamentalist I come across, the Bible was written by man and man has its own biases and imperfections.  I would prefer to read it like I interpret the Constitution, if you will.  A broad document that is not meant to be read in a strictly literal sense.  You should instead understand the broad themes and principles it preaches and apply them to your modern and daily life.