It is true that the pursuits of science should be esteemed. However even in this we must be on guard to not allow it such a place of esteem so as to make religious temples from the halls of certain categorical museums of science and history. The category of most interest here are those that implement historical science wherein the empirical practice of such is often not possible. All too oft their findings and interpretations of such are akin to the telling of a grim and fractured fairy tale. Unfortunately they do such a good job of fabricating and marketing these stories and bringing them to life in so many fancied pictures and animations, along with a public’s inebriated love for such, that has the public bamboozled. In his book, Origin and Destiny of the Moral Species, Alexander Wilf adeptly stated that every scientist must first establish a philosophy of the subject under investigation. It is an extremely difficult thing for any scientist to elude such biases despite perhaps even their best intentions to be otherwise objective. Alas, it is a practice that relatively few can achieve because when the evidence cannot offer a means of objective explanation, personal philosophy will fill that void to garner interpretations that often border on...tales of phantasy. For what good are artifactual discoveries without instant intellectual interpretations? Throw in the need to fund these inquiries of science that vainly—mostly—seek the answers to what we are and the motive becomes one that may have more to do with job security than a real pursuit for answers about the moral species. Therefore, how shall we know good science from bad?