Darwin and Promiscuous thinking

Quotes and comments;
1. 'Science Daily blindly reproduced an audacious claim from the University of Liverpool that Neanderthals were promiscuous on the basis of – what? – their finger bones.
“Neanderthals Were More Promiscuous Than Modern Humans, Fossil Finger Bones Suggest.”
The thinking was that a thick finger bone suggests larger amounts of male hormone during development, which in turn suggests that the men were more masculine, therefore aggressive, therefore promiscuous. [1.]

- We might call this promiscuous thinking; what it isn't is empirical science. We might call it a disorderly mix of science and fantasy. There's no way they can know this. This is another (egregious) example of the refusal to accept any limits when it comes to science. The majority of scientists seem to believe there's nothing they can't find out; that all questions are answerable by science. Even if this were true (and I don't believe it is) this isn't science.

One could only know this (if then) by actual observation. Observation is supposed to be the basis of the scientific method; but for some reason Darwinists regularly ignore this fundamental of the trade. A story isn't science. (For reasons that are somewhat obscure, Darwinists are allowed to get away with substituting stories for observation.)

The editor who accepted such drivel was being as indiscriminate as an intoxicated teenager at a rave. There seems to be a lack of rigorous standards, when any Darwinian just so story comes across the desk. It appears that any bit of speculation that fits the evolutionary worldview is deemed fit to go.

Conclusion;
This story received widespread coverage in the press. I wonder why. Is it because it allows people to imagine we're getting less decadent over time, instead of more decadent as the regular charge has been?

Notes;
1. Dumbing Down the Science Reading Public; Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/05/2010
'In their rush to grab attention-getting headlines, are reporters doing more harm than good? An essential part of science education is critical thinking. Some headlines and articles state ideas that far outstrip the meager data on which they are based.'
- editor's comment.
3. The title of this post reflects the idea Charles Darwin began this process of substituting stories for observation; speculation for empirical method.