Yes. A Satanist can accept modern science without pretending that science has proved Satan exists.
That distinction matters. Science is a method for testing claims about the observable world. Theistic Satanism is a religious position: we believe Satan is spiritually real and we build devotional practice around that belief. Those are different categories of claim, and the Church does not gain anything by blurring them.
What science is allowed to correct
If a religious interpretation makes a testable statement about physics, medicine, biology, astronomy, or another empirical subject, evidence gets a vote. A devotional feeling is not a substitute for a laboratory result, and a sacred text is not a medical instrument.
This sounds obvious, but religious writing often becomes less credible when it tries to use scientific language as decoration. Terms such as energy, frequency, dimension, quantum, or vibration should not be borrowed to make a metaphysical belief sound experimentally established. If we mean something theologically, we should say so.
What belief still does
Science can describe a candle flame, the nervous system, the age of a manuscript, or the psychological effects of meditation. It does not automatically settle what a person should worship, what a ritual means to a believer, or whether a private religious experience carries spiritual significance.
That does not make every spiritual claim true. It means only that religious interpretation has to be honest about where evidence ends and belief begins.
Critical thinking is not disloyalty
Members are not expected to switch off skepticism when they enter a religious space. Ask where a claim came from. Separate a historical source from a modern interpretation. Notice when an argument depends on hearsay. Change your mind when the evidence changes.
The Church's own language about the acausal, for example, is theological and philosophical. We do not present it as a discovery of physics. That boundary makes the belief clearer, not weaker.
So what happens when belief and evidence appear to conflict?
Start by defining the claim. Sometimes there is no conflict at all; a symbolic or devotional statement has been mistaken for an empirical one. Sometimes the religious interpretation really does make a factual assertion, in which case it should survive ordinary scrutiny rather than receive special protection.
For us, faith is not improved by pretending certainty where there is uncertainty. A serious religious life can include devotion, doubt, study, correction, and intellectual restraint at the same time.
That is the short answer: Satanists can believe in science because science is not a rival religion. It is one of the best tools we have for finding out how the observable world works. Our theology should be clear enough not to need science as a costume.