One of the most common assumptions of the modern age is the idea that science will eventually explain everything.
The claim is usually framed like this:
As scientific knowledge progresses, unanswered questions will gradually disappear. What once seemed mysterious will become clear. And as a result, concepts such as God, metaphysics, or transcendent meaning will no longer be necessary.
Over the last two centuries, science has indeed achieved extraordinary success. Many natural phenomena that were once poorly understood are now explained in terms of physical laws, mathematical models, and empirical observation. Because of this progress, some conclude that the remaining unknowns are merely temporary gaps in our knowledge.
But is this conclusion justified?
To examine this claim properly, we must first ask a more fundamental question:
What does science actually explain, and what does it not?
The Core Assumption Behind the Claim
The belief that science will eventually explain everything rests on a powerful but often unexamined assumption:
that all meaningful questions about reality are scientific questions.
According to this view, anything that cannot be explained through observation, experimentation, or theoretical modeling is either irrelevant, illusory, or destined to be explained later. Meaning, purpose, value, and even existence itself are treated as problems awaiting scientific resolution.
At first glance, this seems reasonable. After all, science has a remarkable track record.
However, this assumption quietly transforms science from a method into a worldview.
Explanation vs. Exhaustion
Science excels at explaining processes.
It tells us how things behave, how systems evolve, and how physical interactions unfold over time.
But explaining a process is not the same as exhausting reality.
For example, science can explain how rain forms by describing evaporation, condensation, and atmospheric pressure. Yet this explanation does not address why the universe contains such laws in the first place, or why existence follows intelligible patterns at all.
The claim that science will eventually explain everything assumes that process-level explanations are sufficient to answer all meaningful questions. This is not a scientific conclusion. It is a philosophical one.
A Category Mistake
Many debates surrounding science and belief arise from a category mistake.
Science answers questions of how.
Questions of why, meaning, and value belong to a different category altogether.
When science is expected to replace metaphysics or theology, it is no longer operating within its own proper domain. It is being asked to do something it was never designed to do.
This does not diminish science. On the contrary, it protects its integrity.
A Question Worth Keeping Open
The real issue is not whether science is powerful. It clearly is.
The real issue is whether scientific explanation alone is sufficient to account for the full depth of human experience and reality itself.
Before concluding that science will one day explain everything, we must first decide what we mean by “everything.”
This question remains open. And perhaps it should.
Next in the series:
The “God of the Gaps” Argument: A Misunderstood Critique