A crude strawman. I am around scientists every day. I have never in my career heard anybody make this claim, ever. It would be a foolish claim to make, since anyone with even a peripheral connection to science sees previously accepted results being overturned regularly.
I will say that because of the self-correcting nature of science, the conclusions of scientific research do have a far more valid claim on the truth than conclusions reached by any other means yet devised.
Including Divine Revelation?
Yes. With regard to the part of the world you can see. But physicists, in particular, know that there are many parts of the world that are inaccessible, and about which we know nothing. Let's see: what existed before the big bang (and why the initial fireball was at an extremely low entropy), how to explain the quantum world of wave functions, which can't be touched or proved to exist (except by inferrence), and yet which makes up all existence, the existence of other dimensions (now widely accepted part of string theory), the world that may exist in time-like intervals in relativity theory. Neither are physicists good at explaining the existence of the beautiful and complex world of mathematics. Just chance occurrence that the world of mathematics fits together so well and completely? Maybe (but for many, doubtfully). Many people who believe in God infer his existence from other things, and assume that there is more to the world than that which can be measured and experimented with by physicists. They may be wrong. But physicists should be careful that they not limit their thoughts to only that which can be measured directly in the laboratory. Such may only be a tiny part of the ultimate reality.
I would agree with that wholeheartedly. However, evolutionists, in arguing against anti-evolutionists, add something to what science is which is false. They add that science is a priori a denial that there is a God. They add that the answer to a question can never be God. Science does not make such assumptions. If it cannot explain something by its methods it leaves the question as 'unresolved', it does not make claims to knowing the answer to such matters. Evolutionists however, do make such claims in the name of science.
That was precisely my argument. TRUE scientists are pragmatists. Alas some who claim they are scientists use "science" to promote their ideology. Galton and eugenics, leading to the Nazis, is one example. Much of what passes for "social science" similarly is more based on ideology than science, since they ignore complex parameters that contaminate their data.
Evolution neither denies nor affirms a Creator. It is a scientific observation.
Darwinian evolution, however, uses an observation and inserts religion into it's thesis. (Darwin started his search with the question of how things could exist without God: Not as an indifferent scientist).
Darwin insists blind chance was behind evolution. But evidence shows there is a tendency toward complexity in nature. Systems evolve into complex systems in leaps, not gradually. This tendency toward complexity is not necessarily due to a god. But it could be. That is why Darwinians continue to ignore more modern theories like information theory or Chaos theory.
Similarly, like other ideologues, this author is using "science" to destroy a belief system-- to destroy religion. Sorry, but science has neither proven nor disproven the existence of God. As Rummy would say: the absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absense. There has so far been no adequate experiment devised to detect if God exists or not. On the other hand, things like beauty, absolute truth, and love cannot be proven scientifically to exist.