“The long-held view that Neanderthals were inferior to Homo sapiens is changing as, one by one, capabilities thought unique to us have been linked to them,” says New Scientist. Recent discoveries indicate that Neanderthals built shelters and hearths, controlled fire, wore clothes, cooked food, made tools, and created glue to attach spear points to their shafts. There is also evidence that they cared for sick individuals, wore symbolic ornaments, and buried their dead. According to Erik Trinkaus, professor of physical anthropology at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, “Neanderthals were people, and they probably had the same range of mental abilities we do.” [Awake!, a monthly magazine put out by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. November 2011 edition, p. 29.]
Dr. Seth Lerer in the DVD course History of the English Language, second edition, asked the question whether people deduce from data or induce from theory, and stated the method used was the difference between description and imagination. (see The Great Courses). His lecture was on structural linguistics; however, these approaches can be used for analyzing religions and religious beliefs, evolution and evolutionary beliefs, etc.
Since beliefs about evolution are woven in how people look at archeological artifacts, it is suitable to question the foundation theories, beliefs, etc of evolution. Were evolutionary beliefs founded from the systematic and careful study of data, or was a theory (or multiple theories) imagined/formed and from them beliefs extrapolated? Basically, is evolution a "hard" science or a "soft" science? My question is not how it is studied in schools, universities and other places, but how it measures up. It seems to me that evolution uses "hard" science-proven facts to support a soft science that is based on beliefs. Nobody was there at the creation of the world, at the Big Bang of the world, when bugs crawled out of nothing and over time man stretched his limbs and became intelligent. These things have never been proven, but hard facts of science have tried to prove them although unsuccessfully. And therefore the question remains, is evolution a science that is deduced or induced, a science that is based on facts or based on the imagination?
This is argumentative material, but I think that people need to critically think about their principles and study them out for themselves. Just because the masses follow something does not mean that it is correct. This is a materialistic world and people are becoming more and more interested in their material goods rather than sticking with their belief systems - e.g. principles, morals, religious beliefs... People should know their values and personal beliefs and not compromise them by alternative teaching, which may be popular but does not mean that it is correct.
