Jaki writes one contradiction after another.
Jaki wrote:That juggernaut [of agnosticism in contemporary philosophy of science] is of no use against those two gigantic figures, Planck and Einstein, who mark the transition from the inland sea of classical physics to the wide ocean of modern physics.
As I already quoted, Planck and Einstein would have disagreed with his conclusion.
Jaki wrote: Through their achievement, the world appeared more singular and more coherent than ever.
Not sure what he means by "singular" in that sentence, but considering quantum physics, it's difficult to see how the world appears more coherent than ever. One physicist described the bewildering confusion of those theories by saying "If you think you understand quantum physics, you do not understand quantum physics."
Jaki wrote: The unfolding of ever deeper layers of the microcosmos and the grasp of ever farther reaches of the macrocosmos continue to be based on the quantum of action and on general relativity respectively.
And as I understand it, the physics of those two realms contradict each other, which undermines his statements below.
Jaki wrote: Although both of these theories are often presented as supports of positivism, the physical reality they bear witness to calls for an epistomology irreconcilable with positivist legislation on reality as well as on science....
An assertion with no explanation or support.
Jaki wrote:The coherence displayed by singularity throughout the cosmos witnesses that although that singularity pervades the entire cosmos, it comes to the cosmos from without...
The bold phrase is a bit of word salad to me. He doesn't explain what "singularity throughout the cosmos" means, how that is coherence, and how can coherence witness? If he's saying the laws of physics are the same throughout the cosmos, that doesn't seem surprising since it all started in one place, a singularity prior to the big bang. And as Interbane said, the conclusion that this came "from without" is simply bolted on non-sequitur.
Jaki wrote:...from the creative choice of an intellect necessarily acting for a purpose which can, in its specifics, at most be surmised by human intellect.
How does he know it's an intellect
necessarily acting for a purpose? He says that purpose "at most" can be "surmised", i.e. it's a guess or conjecture without evidence. Jaki states the universe is without meaning we'll ever understand.