Herbert Spencer is a curiously strange figure in the history of English political thought. He started as an individualist and almost became an anarchist in the end as he wanted to restrict the sphere of activities of the state to the barest minimum. In fact he gave a long list of things which the state should undertake. He claimed to be a scientist but his approach towards political theory was not scientific. He did not draw his conclusions from the scientific study of political institutions. On the contrary he was already charged with political pre-conceptions and he sought to find in science examples or analogies to justify his pre-determined conclusions. He was an individualist and he twisted his arguments like that of survival of the fittest or an analogy between organism and state, which if pursued scientifically and logically would have led to collectivist conception of state. But he distorted them in such a manner and rounded them off in a way to fit in with his individualistic conception of state. This paper focuses on how does Herbert Spencer reconcile his individualism with his organic concept of society? It also overviews his claim to be a scientist and concludes that his approach to political theory was not scientific.