I enjoyed the snip and also have serious problems with scientism.
This: “It is Reductionist and Materialist and MUST be, by its own definition.”
Is absolutely true.
I don’t think anything you’ve said, though, detracts or contracts my observation.
Perhaps you can provide more detail or clarity.
The quote, you quoted;
“The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design”
This needs to be broken down.
“The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind;
Is it the following Statement;
"thus physics alone explains the human mind and all it does.
That you call Non-Sense ?
Or this statement ?
This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design”
I see nothing wrong with the statement in its entirety.
I'm not sure what you are calling Non-sense?
I have no problem with science being material and reductionist. I do have a problem when it is held up as an all encompassing enterprise that has all the answers.