Scientism claims that science provides the only or best way to render truth about the world or reality. Strong scientism makes the exclusive claim, weak scientism the authoritative one. This is a serious overreach, but regrettably, this view holds enormous sway within Western culture. In fact, it is a significant reason why many Christians come to doubt their faith.

Confidence in science, and therefore scientism, comes from its continued success. Newton’s law of gravity is one of science’s most successful theories, explaining with great accuracy how apples fall and planets move. But it has a weakness. It does not correctly predict the orbit of Mercury. General relativity overcomes this limitation by estimating the spacetime distortion caused by the sun’s gravity well. The more capable theory of Einstein subsumes the Newtonian model. This ineluctable advance of science with its underlying commitment to materialism (that the physical world is the entirety of reality) makes scientism appealing. 

Like Einstein with Newton, an existing paradigm yields only to a superior approach. Therefore, arguing directly against scientism is necessary but not sufficient. A positive alternative must replace it. Accordingly, we show that scientism is neither the only way nor the best way to render truth about reality. Design provides a better way to render truth about reality.

Scientism’s Faulty Foundation

The statement that “science or the scientific method is the only…way to discover truth about the world” is a statement of science about itself. It is circular reasoning. Moreland[1] recounts a conversation with a Ph.D. student: “knowledge of reality is that which can be quantified and tested in the laboratory. If you can measure it and test it scientifically you can know it.” This student’s exclusive claim is self-refuting because science cannot test the statement. Logical inconsistency is a serious problem for strong scientism. Digging deeper  exposes additional flaws. 

Scientism appeals to the scientific method, which depends on mathematics for its success,[2] but mathematical abstractions transcend the physical universe. Bishop asserts that most mathematicians are Platonists.[3] One can imagine a universe with a different gravitational constant, but binary arithmetic cannot change. Not so fast, though, for Tegmark[4] declares that the universe, indeed, the multiverse, is mathematics: “all possible mathematical structures have a physical existence, and collectively, give a multiverse that subsumes all others.” Furthermore, researchers are deriving the standard model of physics from algebra.[5] 

However, this only argues for the inclusion of mathematics within the materialist framework. Granting this access does not help scientism’s cause. Gödel proved that axiomatic mathematics is either incomplete or inconsistent.[6] Any successful Theory of Everything is not reductionist, but subordinates physical laws to the incomplete world of mathematics. The immaterial mind of the mathematician is beyond the mathematics. This falsifies materialism. 

Additionally, scientism has a flawed understanding of truth. Truth does not arise from minds emergent from brains.[7] If it did, its pronouncements would be chemically determined, not useful truth claims.[8] Haldane remarks:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Instead, knowledge originates in transcendent minds that comprehend logical propositions—where mathematicians can conceive beautiful worlds beginning with nothing.[9]

Still, neuroscientists insist that our brains determine who we are: [10]

…one’s present brain, and so one’s mental state, can be thought of as a compilation of past states that can be used to predict the future. A neuroscientist who knew all the principles of brain function and everything about someone’s brain could predict that person’s mental conditions—the future, as well as the past, would be present inside the person’s mind.

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor responds that the brain hosts an immaterial mind that is metaphysically simple. Surgery that splits the brain does not create two personalities. Surgeons can stimulate arm motion but the patient separates the physician’s agency from his own. Also, patients can veto a response to stimulus. This “free won’t” invalidates determinism.[11] 

Finally, science is limited. Science has no explanation for the origin and fine-tuning of the universe,[12] or the origin of life (OoL).[13] The more we learn about these problems, the more remote their solutions appear. An orderly universe and the life it hosts require an information source beyond itself. 

Instead, scientists argue against an external intelligence. When Napolean asked LaPlace why his book on the system of the universe did not reference the Creator, LaPlace replied “Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.”[14] 

Experts today conclude the opposite. Flew[15] says: “I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God.” Chemist James Tour,[16] notices the rapidly receding goalposts for evolutionary OoL solutions. Agree with these experts or not, the existence of an alternative approach to truth refutes strong scientism’s exclusive claim.  

What about weak scientism? Is it the best way to render truth about the universe?

Scientism Is Dehumanizing

Life’s accidental appearance in materialist mythology yields a world without meaning. Furthermore, the solar system is a thermodynamically closed system. This prohibits supernatural intervention and grants humanity autonomy and moral freedom. Good and evil are social constructs or based on personal preference. Inexorable scientific progress promises boundless knowledge. Scientism would rule this world. 

But does it work? Francis Schaeffer challenges individuals to apply the logic of their worldviews to the real world.[17] This produces tension. Scientism claims the world is meaningless, but individuals inhabit a meaningful real world. They value their lives, families, and work. 

Camus counters that “life is meaningless, but worth living, provided you recognize it's meaningless.”[18] This is absurd. In the 1930s, an Austrian psychotherapist discovered that suicidal patients who could answer why they should not take their life were not in danger. Those without an answer had lost their purpose for living. Later, when given a number for a name in a Nazi camp, Victor Frankl learned that “he [who] knows the ‘why’ for his existence…will be able to bear almost any ‘how.’”[19] Materialism strips humanity of this hope because truth and morality become absurd. As a result, scientism diminishes individuals. 

Scientism applied to society faces a similar challenge. Moreland[20] observes that scientism fosters religious intolerance because moral opinions are subjective. Values belong in the attic[21] of private life not in the public square, where facts reign supreme. Because of this facts-values split, universities can no longer train virtuous students, only knowledgeable ones. 

Scientism’s advocates counter that moral values are illusory. Here is Michael Ruse. “Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth…Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction...any deeper meaning is illusory.”[22] Ruse writes persuasively—as if his words had meaning. Note Schaeffer’s tension. Accordingly, his writing is disingenuous. 

Groothuis recognizes that “morality cannot be derived from mere statements of scientific natural facts. The ‘ought’ (morality) cannot come from the ‘is’ (mere nature). Moral value needs a transcendent source. Moreover, when objective morality is banished by naturalism, virtue becomes impossible.”[23] Scientism degrades society. 

Overseeing a meaningless world leads to governance without conscience. Glaspey[24] comments: “Scientism is a philosophy that can easily lead to dehumanization because it takes the questions of transcendent value off the table.” “A world of bare facts is a world open to manipulation by those who hold the keys to what they see as the only legitimate form of knowing.” Accordingly, “scientism is not really about the exercise of legitimate science, but about the exercise of power and control.” 

Yet proponents argue that scientists have an obligation to lead. “If scientists ever had the choice to remain above the fray, they no longer have this luxury…[W]e should not view science as an activity to be kept separate from policy and politics but, instead, as a key resource for facilitating complicated decisions.”[25]             

Many, however, witnessed scientism’s excesses during the COVID pandemic. “Trust the science” appealed to authority, but government leaders selected the science everyone should trust. They manipulated facts, and persecuted dissenting scientists.[26] In the lab-leak origin of the coronavirus, Moffit[27] uncovered “an elaborate scheme to create a preferred political narrative that would dominate public discussion of the novel coronavirus. The means was publication in a high-powered, peer-reviewed professional journal that would discredit the ‘lab leak’ theory.” Scientism abused science in pursuit of power. 

Consequently, the claim that scientism is the best way to render truth about reality disappoints individuals, society, and government, refuting its superlative claim. 

Moreover, the facts-values split engenders competition. Scientism subsumes values within a world of facts. Critical Theory, which finds meaning in race or group identification, begins with values and chooses facts to match.   

Science’s deconstruction begins with mathematics. Math is a tool of western imperialism. Pearcey[28] cites Georgia State math educators: “Dominant mathematics is a system established as right and [t]rue by the White men who have historically controlled and constructed the game.” Their goal is to expose “the power dynamic between the oppressor—White, male mathematicians—and the oppressed—the marginalized Other.” 

It’s the same story for transgenderism. Gender becomes a choice rather than a biological fact. Transhumanists takes this further. They would upload their consciousness into the “cloud,” persisting perpetually in a virtual world where facts bend to their values. The isolation of this transgressive autonomy is no better than the meaningless world of scientism. 

What scientism builds up from a foundation of facts, Critical Theory tears down. In its wake are burned-out cities, human trafficking, and teen suicide. Nihilism, not utopia. 

Rather than debate these developments, many despair. Former New Atheist Ali[29] concludes: “Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces: the resurgence of great-power authoritarianism…the rise of global Islamism…and the viral spread of woke ideology…[W]e can’t fight off these formidable forces unless we can answer the question: what is it that unites us? The response that ‘God is dead!’ seems insufficient.” 

This is the coup de grace. Scientism is unfit. Its evolutionary trajectory ends in extinction. Materialist science destroys scientism. Scientism is self-defeating, and it destroys humanity in the process. Scientism is not the best way to render truth about reality. 

There must be something better. In the next post, we show that design is the better way to render truth about reality.