They weren't trying to prove that ape is man. Nor are they using their studies to brainwash young people to reject your ancient Hebrew mythical god.
Your mindset proves that you don't have the intellect to understand scientific investigation.
As for humans having a common ancestor with the apes, the evidence is overwhelming.
Take this.
About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.
That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.
Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525
These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2
http://www.genome.gov/13514624
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.