My introduction stated that if you believed in science you cannot believe in Biodynamics and that the reverse is also true, that if you believe in Biodynamics you cannot believe in Science. 


I’ve hitched my wagon to science, so let’s take a look at science.  Science is several thousands of years old.  Some pretty big names are associated with science; Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Aristotle, Bacon, Curie, Copernicus, Da Vinci et al.  These are great scientists who earned their achievements the hard way – they did the research.  There is the scientific method, reproducibility and the peer review.  Remember cold fusion; nobody else could get the same results and so that theory went into the round file.  Science is critical thinking,  challenging the status quo and never closed to criticism.

 Now let’s look at Biodynamics, which was created by Rudolf Steiner in 1924.  Steiner was a member of The Theosophical Society and hung out with the infamous Madame Blavatsky, a great con artist, medium and holder of many séances.  Like Madame Blavatsky, Steiner also spoke with the dead.  He created The Anthroposophy Society and gave the lectures that became the bases for Biodynamic farming. He also created the Waldorf School system. 

 Instead of rigorous research, Steiner used “intuition,” “perception” and “Spiritual Science” to formulate his theories.   Here’s what Steiner said about peer review:  “As far as I am concerned, spiritual-scientific truths are true in and of themselves, and do not need to be confirmed by other circumstances or external methods” and “Direct perception reveals what I have just described.”

 You think I was talking smack at Biodynamics? Get a load of what Steiner thought of Science?

  • “… for today’s superficial science.”
  • “But that is the case with any science that chooses to take into account only physical things; it only understands corpse.  In reality, however, oxygen is the carrier of the living ether, and this living ether uses sulfur to gain control over oxygen.”
  • “Take for example the scientific absurdities…”
  • “These things cannot be dealt with effectively by the science available today.”
  • “The type of experimentation current today is not real science; it is merely a recording of individual phenomena and isolated facts.”
  • “but what does today’s science do?  It takes a little glass plate and puts a carefully prepared something-or-other on it, gets rid of everything else and peers at it through something called a microscope.  That is the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing…”

 Steiner rejected science and created “spiritual Science” to suit his needs.  Steiner’s beliefs are in direct opposition to all of the sciences such as astronomy, botany, biology, zoology, anthropology, geology, plant physiology, plant pathology et al. 

 Science and Biodynamics are mutually exclusive.   Thus, to believe in Biodynamics, you must accept Steiner’s “Spiritual Science” and reject modern science.  I’m hazarding a guess, but I don’t believe that most biodynamic supporters understand this dilemma they’ve gotten themselves into.  The only way that I can see out of this dilemma is intellectual dishonesty or by accepting Biodynamics on faith, thus making it  a religion.

Stuart Smith


  1. senthil says:


    I completely agree with Steiner’s view that modern science is total absurd, NOT in its experiments, but in its fundamental approach.. It is based on dis-belief and doubts, and hence it has become one of the negationists tool for many.

    There are infinite number of things in this world and universe that are happening around us. What is the rationality in thinking that unless science proves it, i will not believe it, even if its working around me..

    So science has essentially become a religion in itself.. Just like christians or the abrhamic book based religions believe that anything outside their holybook is false, the neo-scientific pessimists, believe that anything outside science is false..

    Does this approach have any sense?

    Just a simple question..

    The kurunji plant flowers once in every 12 years.. Whether its one year plant old or 11 year plant old, all flowers at the same time.. How?

  2. nicknakorn says:

    Thanks Stu, it’s appreciated. I think linking into our respective sites is good way to build traffic and spread rationality.

  3. nicknakorn says:

    you and your readers might be interested in a snippet entitled “Larsen’s Embryology used to bolster bogus Biodynamics” from my blog at
    Best wishes,

    • biodynamicshoax says:


      Thanks for the link. If you don’t mind I’ll link to your site; also you have additional links which are very interesting to the subject.
      Thanks again,

  4. Morton says:

    When you can measure what you are thinking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you can’t measure it, when you cannot measure express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.

    Lord Kelvin

  5. nicknakorn says:


    Farming, as you know, has been around for thousands of years. By virtue of the fact that modern chemistry and biology are relatively new, all farming was, until recently, organic. Steiner simply took what was already known about organic farming and overlayed it with mystical nonsense to produce a hybrid taxonomy of farming. It is no suprise, therefore that Biodynamic methods will produce a crop. What is at issue is whether or not one should support or oppose new power structures (within farming generally and within organic farming in particular)run by a bunch of religious nutcases and bigots. Plants and animals do what plants and animals do; according to nature and thus according to science. Claiming mystical connections to the soil is a cheap way of gaining a following able to be maniplulated to political and financial ends. Anthroposophy is one such political movement and here in the UK it has almost entirely taken over the Green agenda and threatens sustainability as forcefully as the agro-industry.

    My advice is to follow the money and the politics; then you’ll get an idea of how vast and complex is the network of Anthroposophical organisations and admirers.

    Best wishes


  6. biodynamicshoax says:

    I’m a little confused by your comments and not to sure how to respond. It seems like “recently introduced “ and “seems to work” are contradictory. That having been said, here’s your answer in a nutshell. First, I’ve thoroughly read Steiner’s lectures upon which Biodynamics is based and to anyone with half a brain, it is pure fantasy. Logic and reasoning tells us that if the foundation is false then all things that flow from that foundation must also be false. The danger to our society is that when society accepts fantasy for reality, or worse can’t tell the difference between the two. Biodynamics is guilty on both accounts with the true believers and those that say, yes it’s a little weird, but who’s to say that there isn’t something to it that we just can’t understand yet, and besides I like the wine and I like the fact that the Biodynamic people care more about their land and others. This is fuzzy thinking.

    Please don’t lose sight that anyone can claim anything, yet there is no research that supports any of the Biodynamic supporter’s claims. I do my best to back up my claims with direct quotes from Steiner. Also, remember that what practitioners say may sound holistic and meaningful, but the devil is in the details and the details are Rudolf Steiner. Not one supporter of Biodynamics has defended the quotes I’ve used to show how ridiculous Steiner’s thinking was.

    Do you farm Biodynamically, or just read about it?

  7. Pete says:


    I have recently been introduced to biodynamics and found it to make sense on the whole although I have to admit that I haven’t conducted any scientific investigations toward it. I am not a scientist myself but I do have deep respect for the scientific approach, from the point of view of doubt everything until you can prove it otherwise. From what I have observed so far however is that biodynamic farming and wine seem to work despite the less than scientific basis. You have probably mentioned this in your other blogs but could you give me specific examples of damage caused by biodynamics?


  8. biodynamicshoax says:


    Thanks for the link, it looks very interesting and I will take the time to read it throughly. Clearly we are on the same page.

  9. nicknakorn says:

    Dear Stuart,

    first, let me congratulate you on an excellent blog. I have been writing along similar lines and have recently decided to join the blog community too. There is no doubt in my mind that Anthroposophy is an immensely damaging cult and, as it gains popularity via Biodynamics an other bogus technologies, will further undermine science, rationality and the application of reasoned ethics and political discourse.

    If you have the time in your busy farming schedule (I’m impressed you find the hours to write your blog!), you might like to read my essay at:

    on the same subject.

    very best wishes


  10. Waldo says:

    Stu –
    The intellectual dishonesty is in comparing Steiner to Jim Jones and the People’s Temple – do you really mean that – or is this just a joke for you?

    • biodynamicshoax says:


      As a believer of Biodynamics, you believe in Spiritual Science, which means you believe that the Atlanteans had airships that were powered by organic, germinating seeds, that Biology is wrong because it is the Sun light and the moon light that determines the evolution of the species, and that human anatomy is wrong because it is the air we breathe that nourishes our body and what we eat nourishes the head and that Botany is wrong because plant disease is caused by too strong of an influence by the moon, so yes Waldo you have drunk the Kool-aid of a Jim Jones like cult figure called Rudolf Steiner.

    • Waldo says:


      That’s like telling me because I’m an American I believe in all its policy’s like the Iraq war – you have taken such a reductionist view that it has really skewed your judgment

      I’ve tried to explain the reasons why I think BD is a admirable endeavor and all you can do is come back at me with the ridiculous “Do you believe in science?” question

      Where are you coming from with this? Do you think organic methods are worthy? Do they have scientific merit in your cosmos? you still haven’t answered the question as to your farming practices – only a link to UCD – why are you afraid to?

      As someone who is of the age to remember Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple in Redwood Valley and San Francisco – so close to your own backyard – I would have thought perhaps that you would be a little more sensitive to just how extreme a comparison that is – truly an evil individual that brought great sadness and destruction to countless victims.

      But when you revealed the fact that your grandchild was attending a Waldorf institution it illuminated the reasons for why you decided to start this blog – I feel for you – sorry you are that torn

    • biodynamicshoax says:


      Let me be very clear to you, my grandson happens to attend a Waldorf school, period. I made it perfectly clear why I started this blog, and he has absolutely nothing to do with it, which you would know if you took the time to read what I wrote. There will be no more discussion about him on this blog.

      Distilling discussions down to their basics is, in my mind, a good thing, so thank you for that compliment. However, what part of “sustainable agriculture” don’t you understand – it’s all there in black and white, just read it; just as my support for organic has been mentioned many times in this blog.

      As a skeptic of Biodynamics I am trying to understand how you or anyone can be a supporter after reading Steiner’s lectures. I find them fantasy and you talk about everything but them – so we’re at a stalemate. We agree to disagree.

  11. Jed Rothwell says:

    You wrote: ” Remember cold fusion; nobody else could get the same results and so that theory went into the round file.”

    That is incorrect:

    1. Hundreds of scientists in 180 major laboratories got the same results. They published ~800 papers in mainstream, peer reviewed journals describing these results, and ~2000 other papers in proceedings and government reports.

    2. Cold fusion is an experimental observation, not a theory.

    For more information, see:

    • biodynamicshoax says:


      Thanks for the link which I read. Yes, I did know about the ongoing controversy about cold Fusion, but it’s always good to see what’s the latest details are.

      I think this is an excellent example of science at work and why Biodynamics can never achieve long-term success. While I stand by my statement that cold fusion is not proven, I’ll admit that there is another side which bears close watching.

      Clearly, I am not qualified to decide who is right. Science can be a cruel master, but I believe that whatever passes for truth will eventually win out in the longrun, however unsatisfactory that is in the short run.

      But thank you for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: