Caveman

It's odd how the caveman evolved into a symbol and a metaphor for the Darwinian creation myth, despite the fact that various lines of evidence refute the ignorant notion that the human brain evolves based on natural selection and random mutation. But at any rate, he's become a common symbol, the caveman. Given that many ancient peoples buried their dead in caves and catacombs one might wonder if their remains should be counted as evidence for "cavemen." For that matter, if modern humans were stripped of civilization as we know it by great natural catastrophies and Great Doom to the point that they had to live in caves would they be cavemen? After all, I'd probably be a caveman if I came to live in a place with nothing but what I could carry away from my former civilization.

So what is true? Apparently those who write the Darwinian creation myths on such topics are reading the evidence based on their own imagination sans logic again:

In a previous chapter, we emphasized that the interfertility test could not be applied to the Neandertals. In his 1989 article in Discover, Jared Diamond thus imposed the false test of culture and found that the Neandertals were not fully human because they had no glue or adhesives for hafting tools; no unequivocal art objects; no boats, canoes, or ships; no bows and arrows; no cave paintings; no domesticated animals or plants; no hooks, nets, or spears for fishing; no lamps; no metallurgy; no mortars and pestles; no musical instruments; no needles or awls for sewing; no ropes for carrying things; no sculpture; and no long-distance overland trade.

Yet in a 1993 article in Discover, this same Jared Diamond recognizes that the Tasmanians were fully human even though they had no glue or adhesives for hafting tools; no unequivocal art objects; canoes that quickly sank; no bows and arrows; no cave paintings; no domesticated animals or plants; no hooks, nets, or spears for fishing; no lamps; no metallurgy; no mortars and pestles; no musical instruments; no needles or awls for sewing; no sculpture; and (being on a rather small island) no long-distance overwater trade.

Why would Diamond consider the Neandertals to be “subhuman” solely on the basis of their alleged limited cultural inventory, when he considers the Tasmanians, having the very same limited cultural inventory, to be fully human? This is one of the most glaring lacks of logic I have ever read in the scientific literature. In a more perfect world, evolutionists would be required to take a course in logic. I cannot explain such an obvious inconsistency on the part of this scientist; I can only report the problem. I know that evolution blinds the soul. I have reason to believe that it also blinds the mind.

(Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils
by Marvin L. Lubenow :214-215)

Unfortunately debate about cavemen isn't really about a reasonable and logical view of the evidence because cavemen serve as an icon of the Darwinian creation myth, that great modern bugaboo.

I watched the movie Rabbit Proof Fence over the weekend. It reminded me of the impact of Darwinian icons and the way that they permeate Western culture and the pseudo-Christianity typical to it. It's a good movie but it can only show a limited view of what was done to the aboriginals. For instance, no hunting of aboriginals or collecting "specimens" and so on is dealt with. I'm not sure there are any movies about such things, just as there seem to be no modern movies about the eugenics movement either.

The whole Darwinian mindset of dealt with in the movie is that in which man shares his ontological status with animals, which thus turns civilization and intelligence into a way of alienating man from animal. If man is not endowed by his Creator with anything that is unalienable as per the ignorant cast of mind typical to Darwinists, then that is what the "emergence" of civilization becomes. If you turn civilization into a way of keeping man and animal distinct because you deny the real basis for that distinction then civilization becomes alienating and uncivilized people become less than human and so on.

This pattern of denying the foundation for being human while trying to prop up the notions of human beings with language and civilization alone reminds me of how it tends to go wrong as far as the distinction between human and animal. E.g., the story of Ota Benga and some original reporting on it:

There was an exhibition at the Zoological Park in the Bronx yesterday which had for many of the visitors something more than a provocation to laughter. There were laughs enough in it, too, but there was something about it which made the serious minded grave. Even those who laughed the most turned away with an expression on their faces such as one sees after a play with a sad ending...
“Something about it that I don’t like,” was the way one man put it.

The exhibition was that of a human being in a monkey cage. The human being happened to be a Bushman, one of a race that scientists do not rate high in the human scale, but to the average non-scientific person in the crowd of sightseers there was somethlng about the display that was unpleasant.
The human being caged was the little black man, Ota Benga, whom Prof. S. P. Verner, the explorer, recently brought to this country from the jungles of Central Africa. Prof. Verner lately handed him over to the New York Zoological Society for care and keeping. When he was permitted yesterday to get out of his cage, a keeper constantly kept his eyes on him.

The news that the pigrny would be on exhibition augmented the Saturday afternoon crowd at the Zoological Park yesterday, which becomes somewhat smaller as the Summer wanes. The monkey—or rather, the primate—house is in the centre of Director Hornaday’s animal family.
[...]
Like his fellow-lodgers, the orang outangs and monkeys, Benga has a room inside the building. It opens, like the rest, into the public cage.
A crowd that fluctuated between 300 and 500 persons watched the little black man amuse himself in his own way yesterday. He doesn’t like crowds, especially the children, who tease him. So he wove at the hammocks and mats which he knows how to make, . jabbered at the parrot which came from the jungles with him, and shot at marks in the ample cage with his bow and arrow. For the latter diversion the Zoological Park managers had macla proviSion by tying bundles of straw against a side of the inclosure. The children got a good deal of fun out of his arrow-shooting when he missed his mark, which was not often. Then he made faces at them.
A little after the noon hour Benga was allowed to go into the woods. A keeper watched him from a distance. It is doubtful if any one has ever seen a happier mortal. Grabbing his bow and arrow, he jumped to the thickest of the underbrush and frisked about.

At liberty Benga seemed to live in Africa again. He peered into every hollow tree and looked at trees and shrubs for birds and squirrels. But the crowd soon found him and he had to move from spot to spot. In the end the keeper had to send him back into the monkey house again.

(BUSHMAN SHARES A CAGE WITH BRONX PARK APES
The New York Times, Sept. 9, 1906; pg. 17)

It sometimes seems that Darwinists would make monkeys of us all if they could.

It's odd how people forget and believe the same old progressive mythology about Scripturalists and conservatives in general taking us back to the Dark Ages and so on. It seems that many believe Leftist scientists engaging in charlatanism. I.e. those who claim that science reveals all knowledge or must be the sole truth which governs the State and man, all of which will inevitably lead society to ages of Enlightenment. (Provided that religious forms of knowledge are private and "separated" from public life. )

Ironically that type of progress has happened before in the West yet instead of grand new ages of truth and light, some rather dark ages followed. After all, by what are we judging "progress"?