Before one more tree falls on one more power line or internet services vacate again, let me say thanks for this thoughtful and provocative response, and I stand corrected about the distinction between scientific materialism and scientific reductionism (which seems a contradiction in terms, but otherwise is what I'm taking to be "scientism"). I've got a couple questions about "design" and what "fundamental" means, I think, but need to rake my unscientific mind over the coals of your better informed post once or twice more...

Ken A

On 7/2/2012 11:13 AM, Tom Gray wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

I don't see the failure of physics as a specific refutation of scientific materialism but as a refutation of scientific reductionism.  However I think that you are quite correct in stating that modern science is undercutting "scientism". Many important concepts are outside of the scope of science.