Please enable javascript in your browser to view this site!

Subscribe now


More in this category:

The mystery of the mummy – not all science is equally ‘scientific’!

May 2014 | by Dominic Statham

Scientists have argued a great deal about the cause of death of the famous Egyptian pharaoh, Tutankhamun (see, for example, Jo Marchant, ‘Death on the Nile’, New Scientist, 15 January 2011).

Multiplying theories

For many years, people believed that the boy-king had died from a haemorrhage, following a blow to the head. Some even speculated that he had been murdered.

However, following extensive CT scanning in 2005, a number of experts, including Frank Rhüli of the University of Zurich, concluded that there had been no blow to the head. Instead, it was suggested that the young pharaoh had suffered a break to the left thigh bone, possibly leading to fatal bleeding or infection.

Some were more dogmatic, such as experts featured in the National Geographic documentary, King Tut’s final secrets. The evidence was unequivocal, they claimed: Tutankhamun clearly died from complications following a broken leg.

Another team of experts, featured in the Discovery Channel documentary, King Tut unwrapped, came to a different conclusion. The young pharaoh was a deformed, sickly youth who died of malaria, they said.

The CT scans, they argued, showed that he had diseased bones, a club foot and a cleft palate. Moreover, samples of DNA were said to have tested positive for malaria, and blemishes were found on the skin which could have been mosquito bites.

However, in another twist, James Gamble, an orthopaedic surgeon from Stanford University, poured cold water on the deformities theory, claiming that these could have resulted from the mummification process.


Two experts from the Bernhard Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg were also sceptical of the malaria theory, arguing that an Egyptian of Tutankhamun’s age would probably have been immune to malaria.

Other experts weighed in regarding the DNA tests, claiming that, in the warm environment of the tomb, the DNA would have degraded within a few centuries and that the data collected may have been the result of contamination.

Bob Connolly, a senior lecturer in physical anthropology at Liverpool University, is also sceptical of the weakling/malaria theory. A more likely explanation, he believes, is that Tutankhamun died from a fall from his chariot. According to Connolly, his chest cavity was caved in and he had broken ribs consistent with his having suffered such an accident.

Raymond Johnson of the University of Chicago also sees Tutankhamun as a very active youth. Carvings from a temple in Luxor, he says, clearly show him engaged in military campaigns, and the weapons, chariots and armour found in his tomb show clear signs of use.

Frank Rhüli, however, points out that a fatal accident would have damaged other parts of the skeleton such as the backbone and arms. But all these ‘experts’ cannot be right!

All these experts had access to the same data — but came to very different conclusions. This is because the data did not speak for themselves, but had to be interpreted. Although the procedures for analysing the data were objective (CT scans, DNA tests, etc.), the conclusions drawn were clearly subjective.


The same, of course, is true for our attempts to reconstruct the history of the earth and its plant and animal life. Evolutionists and biblical creationists have the same data, but view it very differently.

For the evolutionist, the sequence found in the fossil record tells the story of the evolution of life, from microbes to man; but for the creationist it tells the story of the progressive burial of marine and land organisms during the Genesis Flood.

For the evolutionist, the DNA code is identical in virtually all organisms because, in their thinking, they are descended from a common ancestor, but for the creationist, this is because the Creator wanted to show that life had only one designer.

Radioactive dating of the same samples can give wildly different ‘ages’, ranging, for example, from between 1.5 billion and around 6000 years (DeYoung, D., Thousands not billions, Master Books; chapter 4).

For the evolutionist, the 1.5-billion-year result is probably right, because, in their thinking, the evolutionary process requires many millions of years to turn microbes into man; for the creationist, the 6000-year result is probably right, because the Bible teaches that the Earth is young.

In each case, the conclusion has much more to do with the spectacles (or worldview) through which the data are viewed than the data themselves.

Science and science

The difficulties explaining what happened to Tutankhamun can help us understand the difference between operational (or experimental) science and historical (or forensic) science.

Operational science, essentially, relates to knowledge of how the world works, and is gained by observation in the present. Hypotheses are proposed to explain data and then tested, often in a laboratory.

Only those hypotheses that are shown to fit the data when rigorously tested, again and again, are deemed to be scientific. A hypothesis is not considered to be part of science, because it is proposed by a scientist, or because it is discussed by professors in a TV documentary, or because it relates to observations made using hi-tech equipment.

A hypothesis becomes part of mainstream scientific knowledge because repeated attempts to falsify it have failed, and it has therefore been demonstrated to be true, beyond reasonable doubt.

Historical (or forensic) science is very different. Beliefs about how Earth formed or how life began cannot be tested in a laboratory. This kind of ‘science’ is much more like that practised by a detective who collects clues in order to solve a crime — although it is much more difficult than this.

The detective is dealing with events that occurred recently and often receives help from eyewitnesses. But there are no human eyewitnesses to testify to the events surrounding the origin of the Earth and its plants and animals.

Scientists have great difficulty making reliable statements about the remains of an Egyptian pharaoh who lived a few thousand years ago, even though considerable efforts were made to preserve the body. How, then, can they make dogmatic statements about events they claim occurred millions of years ago?

Repeatable experiments

Pythagoras’ equation for calculating the lengths of right-angled triangles has been taught in schools now for many years. Similarly, Boyle’s law describing the behaviour of gases is the same today as when he first stated it, as are Newton’s laws of motion. They have not changed because they were right, or required only qualification when they were originally formulated.

This is one of the characteristics of operational science, the sort of science which employs a rigorous scientific methodology and is based, not on the subjective opinions of experts, but on repeatable experiments.

This kind of science is very powerful, and has led to great advances in knowledge and technology — computers, space shuttles, advanced medical treatments and much more.

When theories change significantly from one decade to another, this indicates that they were never based upon that sort of science or that type of scientific methodology in the first place.

The geologist, Professor Derek V. Ager, remarked: ‘It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student … have now been “debunked”’ (‘The nature of the fossil record’, Proceedings of the geologists’ association, 87(2):131–160).

Similarly, the biologist Professor William B. Provine wrote: ‘Most of what I learned of the field [of evolutionary biology] in graduate school (1964–68) is either wrong or significantly changed’ (A review of teaching about evolution and the nature of science, National Academy of Sciences, 18 Feb. 1999).

Subjective speculations

When the general public hear a scientist saying what ‘science says’ about evolution, they tend to assign the prestige and certainty that are rightly associated with operational science to what are really subjective speculations.

All too often they fail to realise that the evolutionary accounts of life are based on a different type of science — which is why, like theories about Tutankhamun’s death, they are constantly changing.

Dominic Statham, BSc, DIS, MIET, CEng

The author is a Chartered Engineer and graduate of Loughborough University. He has extensive experience of both manufacturing and product development and holds a number of patents. As an employee of Rolls Royce, he worked on projects for the Panavia Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon and, as an employee of GKN, engineering drivelines for Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles. He is a speaker and writer for Creation Ministries International (






Leave a Reply