I'm not really sure I'm understanding your point here. If you are noting that, say, an astrophysicist mapping distant galaxies has no 'need' for a cladogram of reptiles, or that a geologist prospecting for petroleum has no 'need' for quantum mechanics--well, the point is obvious. But that is simply a reflection of the vast bulk of solid information we have accumulated about the material world. Perhaps 500 years ago, a 'natural philosopher' (as scientists were then called) still had a reasonable prospect of mastering the volume of knowledge. But now, of course, the volume alone of knowledge simply demands specialisation; it's the limitation of our own brains, not the nature of science, which demands this.
More significant, IMHO, is the basic unified nature of science and its methodology. One may (in fact, must) choose a specific discipline in which to work, but one cannot choose only some parts of the scientific method for that work, and that is why science is ultimately 'seamless.' For a crude analogy, consider an orchestra: every musician in it can play at least one instrument, some can play several, none can play all. The flautists have no "need" for the cellists' portion of the score, but all play according to the same methodology of music. And they cannot do otherwise.
I think this point--the fundamental unity of science--matters, for several reasons. Some critics of ToE appear to view Darwin and his work as an aberration and an assault on some particular forms of religious belief, and that if Darwin can be "refuted," then the 'threat' of science to those particular varieties of religious belief will go away. But this is flat-out wrong. Darwin could never have formulated his ToE without the advances Lyell had made in geology--advances which alone demonstrate that there had been no global deluge as described in the Bible and Koran. In turn, Darwin's ToE led to an understanding of the fossils which has played back into further advances in geology. If anyone doubts this, then I would ask them to kindly indentify a single oil company that employs Biblical scholars in lieu of geologists to find petroleum!
Indeed, I doubt if there is a branch of science which doesn't conflict with literal readings of every religion's scripture some way or another (linguistics, for example, includes a branch of diachronic analysis which shows there just couldn't have been a Tower of Babel in the literal sense). But does this mean that science is thereby "denying God?" I don't think so at all, though it does indeed rule out some fundamentalist tenants of some religions. For the adherents of those fundamentalist views, I suppose one really only can say they have a right to simply ignore science if it creates too many conflicts for them. What they do not have a right to do is endeavour to change the nature of science to shield a set of minority beliefs.
There's one final point maybe lurking in all this. I think there is a lot of misconception in the air about that nature of science. Science by definition is materialistic, it cannot be otherwise--but that is not at all the same as a necessary endorsement of materialist philosophy; it simply states that any 'non-material' domains, if any exist, are simply out of scope and unaddressable by science. I don't understand why this is a problem to anyone. Asking science to be anything other than materialistic is the same dilemma Bogart pointed out to the thugs beating him up in Petrified Forest (I think), something along the lines of "I know the kind of goons you are: first you knock my teeth out, then you kick me for mumbling!"
Well, yeah, that was the point I was making. I got my degree in Meteorology and evolution never came into it. There is nothing in that field that hinges on evolution. Biology courses were never required. One could be a great meteorologist and have no clue what evolution is all about. It seems that from what I've read on these threads, that there are some who disagree with this.
Those other branches of science depend on the scientific method of which the ToE is an example, but rejecting the ToE is not rejecting the scientific method; it's just rejecting the conclusions some have arrived at by observing the fossil record.