The very first sentence in the link I gave: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints. The rest of the paragraph goes on to say the same things to varying degrees.
No one has a problem with science and what it has discovered. The question is where does science stop? There is no way science can comment on what it means that it seems inextricable that life came from non-life or how incredibly complex the cell is. Science cannot comment on the existence of God, why the universe is fine-tuned, the existence of miracles, and a myriad of other things. Rhythm is right, it is a tool. It is not the source of all knowledge and certainly cannot be used to dismiss alternatives that may be true/probably/possible/not likely through other methods not conflicting with science.
No one has a problem with science and what it has discovered. The question is where does science stop? There is no way science can comment on what it means that it seems inextricable that life came from non-life or how incredibly complex the cell is. Science cannot comment on the existence of God, why the universe is fine-tuned, the existence of miracles, and a myriad of other things. Rhythm is right, it is a tool. It is not the source of all knowledge and certainly cannot be used to dismiss alternatives that may be true/probably/possible/not likely through other methods not conflicting with science.
