This paper addresses the following questions: Can science oppose the creator? Is science divine or merely man-made? and How are we to confront claims of science? Science is not man-made. Mankind cannot create or even modify science. Science is pure. The “untainted by mankind” character of pure science is recognized in the accreditation standards used to earn pure science college degrees at every major university in the country. When applying for an accredited pure science degree the student must present four full years of college level passing grades based only on the student’s knowledge of location relationships that are not man-made. There are many other sciences, all man-made. Religion is the study of man-made sciences and cannot be applied as credit to earn a pure science college degree. The whole concept of “Science vs. God” is silly unless “Science” refers to the man-made science of a religion. The real issue is not, “Science vs. God” but is in fact the very ancient conflict of purely man-made religions vs. man-made religions believed to be inspired by God. The real issue is, “Religion vs. Religion.” Often, the word “science“ is used only to give some man-made judgments a perceived advantage over competing religious beliefs. And, the repeated success of the religious man-made science strategy is amply demonstrated by the numerous examples of judicial religious edicts issued by government courts in the United States. Roe v. Wade is the classic example.How to Confront Claims of Science.The Gospel of Luke is one of many man-made books believed by Christians to be the inspired word of God. Christians recognize Luke’s authority is Divine (beyond the power of mankind). In Luke 20 we see that Jesus accepted the authority of Pharisees to differentiate Divine teachings from purely man-made teachings. And, Jesus rejected the phony Pharisees who would not live up to the authority of their office. So too, when confronted by claims of scientific authority ask if the origin is Divine (beyond the power of mankind) or merely man-made judgment. Locate science. Judge faith. Two Case StudiesCase Study 1. Roe v. Wade.Roe v. Wade is perhaps the most remarkable U.S. Supreme Court Decision ever made because there is no rational constitutional, legal, or scientific basis for it to exist. The majority decision records testimony to this dilemma by its extensive use of the various constitutional, legal, and scientific fictions it had to manufacture to hide the lack of rationality. This case study focuses on the man-made legal fiction called, “trimester” which was widely quoted as the U.S. Supreme Court’s law of the land for over twenty years after the Roe v. Wade decree of 1973. In recent years the trimester has become merely another faded historical anachronism relegated to the trash heap of junk science. Scientists don’t know what a trimester is because they don’t know how to locate it. No trimester substance or event exists in time or space. Trimester is a classic example of a man-made rationalization of a spiritual concept some people believe ought to exist. Case Study 2. Gonzales v. Carhart The Opinion of the Court is that all courts must obey the law under judicial review. While it’s true this came as a big surprise it is the concurring and dissenting opinions that this case study uses. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring, states: “I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. V. Casey, 505 U. S. 833(1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. …” The concurring opinion presents a direct challenge to Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The dissenting Justices in fact show no interest in defending any of the faith based beliefs in their dissent from Justice Thomas’ very pointed attack. They don’t because they can’t. No rational constitutional, legal, or scientific basis can be located to defend their dissent. Instead of locating scientific facts or legislation, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ginsburg preaches a litany of faith in man-made quotations which I summarize: Courts need not live by legislation alone but by every word uttered out of the mouths of abortionists and judges. In other words she arrogantly believes her faith is so superior that it should supersede a law passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President.