You haven’t really addressed what I was saying. I was talking (implicitly) about scientism and the naturalistic fallacy. I was saying that scientific methods deal with objective truths, not with subjective or value-oriented ones. Science shows us what the facts are and how nature actually works, not what we ought to do about those facts. Thus, a science-centered worldview is liable to be rudderless.
Moreover, because science is a form of hyperskepticism and the facts in question undermine the myths and delusions that make us happy and perhaps sane, science does indeed potentially have a disastrous effect on social stability (postmodern malaise, ennui, anxiety, etc.) Indeed, science and technology are progressive in that they raise our living standards and produce an artificial environment that caters to our desires (whereas the wilderness is indifferent even to our survival, let alone our happiness). But the liberal’s science-centered, humanistic worldview makes it much harder to defend any set of values, by enforcing cognitive methods and intellectual standards that are antithetical to religious faith.
So you’re focusing on the advantages of science and technology, but you’re ignoring the philosophical upshot of naturalism. (Also, the progress you refer to is complicated by the negative impact on the natural environment, facilitated by technological advances.)
We seem to agree, though, on the politics.