This is a topic I have talked before. Notice in this article here that the author (Kirk Durston) says the following about the best explanation for nature itself.
A much more serious consequence of scientism is that it has had a significant corrupting influence on 21st-century science.
To avoid the circular fallacy, logic dictates that the cause of nature must be beyond nature. That, right there, falsifies scientism but it also establishes the requirement that the supernatural must be taken into account in humanity’s pursuit of answers — not just with respect to the origin of the cosmos and of life, but in discussions of justice, beauty, morality, love, and honor.
This is a similar theme that I pointed out here:
in his book Who Made God: Searching For A Theory Of Everything? Edgar Andrews has given us some things to ponder here:
1. It is important to understand that science can explain nothing except in terms of the laws of nature. Science works by first discovering (by observation) laws that describe the workings of nature and then using this knowledge to seek out further explanations — beginning with hypotheses and then confirming these hypotheses by various tests, the chief of which must always be repeatable experimental verification. To offer a scientific explanation of anything one must always appeal to existing laws (or at very least plausible hypotheses). No laws, no science; it’s as simple as that.
2. To explain the origin of the universe scientifically, therefore, requires an appeal to laws of nature (established or hypothesized) that pre-existed the universe. But laws of nature are nothing more than descriptions of the way nature operates. No one has ever proposed a law of nature that does not involve existing natural entities, whether they be matter, energy, space-time or mathematical systems. (Note that mathematics are arguably philosophical rather than scientific in character and are only scientifically relevant when applied to natural realities — that is, the world as it exists).
3. This creates a dilemma; the laws of nature cannot exist without nature itself existing but the origin of nature cannot be explained scientifically without pre-existing laws. The logical conclusion is that science cannot, by its very nature, explain the origin of the universe.