We propose further that what is left behind is more the result of subjective choice than reasoned analysis. Science does not systematically disprove occult theses; as a general rule, it freely elects not to consider them.

The chapter on Egypt is already interesting.

" Living as we do at a time when science fixes so many things, one might insist that it can grant us an unbiased reflection of the past. The trouble is science nurtures its own biases. This is nor an indictment of science, just a recognition of its human origin and consequent fallibility.

Yes, it's kinda like how winners get to write history.  Losers may have given a good accounting of themselves and just barely lost, but this is all ignored in the subjective boasting of the final victor. 

 

It seems like we just can't trust anything that is perpetrated by Man. I hate to keep referring to the bible, but a lot of its detractors say the scriptures were subjected to the whims of whomever was copying or translating them, and those doing this were often "drunk monks" or ones high on hallucinagens and they would write anything that suited their fancy. 

 

Apparently, science is only as good as the person applying it Just like a computer is only as good as its programmer.   

What's interesting about the bible is how much it is a copy of Persian , Hebrew and Egyptian stories. Which Christians seem unaware.