Science is expected to be objective: however, since practiced and produced by humans, it has to reflect human flows – prejudices, stubbornness, malice, and the tendency to be misused. No wonder an excellent scientist like John Eccles proclaimed science to be among the most personal activities he had known. By analysing a few examples from the history of science (in particular the intellectual development of Van Rensselaer Potter, the American onco-biochemist and bioethics pioneer), as well as the current trend of the evidence-based approach, the present paper will try to demonstrate that denying, distrusting, and opposing science for the sake of religion, as seen so many times in human history, has significant similarities to the overestimation of science we more often encounter in our times.Science is expected to be objective: however, since practiced and produced by humans, it has to reflect human flows – prejudices, stubbornness, malice, and the tendency to be misused. No wonder an excellent scientist like John Eccles proclaimed science to be among the most personal activities he had known. By analysing a few examples from the history of science (in particular the intellectual development of Van Rensselaer Potter, the American onco-biochemist and bioethics pioneer), as well as the current trend of the evidence-based approach, the present paper will try to demonstrate that denying, distrusting, and opposing science for the sake of religion, as seen so many times in human history, has significant similarities to the overestimation of science we more often encounter in our times.