Oh, scientism is alive and well. To find a scientist that proclaim science can completely explain the development of life one need look no further than Richard Dawkins.
He teaches that all life is the product of purposeless material forces-random genetic variation and natural selection.
I think we could both agree that when science begins ascribing purpose, or purposelessness, to its field of scientific study, it has crossed the boundary of what science can know, or claim to know through the use of science alone.
Ah, now you're backtracking. That's not the same thing at all.
I would like you to support your statement that any scientist has labeled the "ToE as complete in itself in explaining all knowledge possible about the development of life."
Kindly support the statement or retract it.