With due repect to Mister Tyson, no.
The universe is true. Science (when done well) is only a particularly rigorous approach to interpretation of the nature of the universe. It is a human construct. Unless one believes that humans can "know" truth, that is all it can be.
Any scientist who insists on a priori "proof" of God misunderstands the reality of the inductive method that science is. Science can persuade, can provide better (or worse) reasons for believing in a proposition, but it cannot prove that proposition. At best, it can disprove a proposition. (And while I am open to "scientific" proof that God does not exist, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. I don't have that kind of hubristic pride in the scientific method.)
If a "scientist" demands proof of God before admitting that God might play a role in the story, he is selectively practicing the rules (and ignoring the liimitations) of his own method. See, e.g., Karl Popper.
Mr. Tyson may feel it an appropriate division of labor to not bother about God as an explanation, but his justification is not grounded in truth but in his belief about the relative power of inductive methods of "science" and inductive methods of "religion", in the same way that I might believe that the inductive methods of "economics" and "history" are superior to the inductive methods of "political science" or "literary criticism."
Originally Posted by: Wade
Science is about as "true" as it gets. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it's as good as we currently have because it's repeatable. As an earth scientist, I accept many "truths" about the natural world, because many experiments have been completed and repeated over and over again, and the same or similar results have been achieved. Therefore, it's essentially a "truth," at least until it can be disproved. I can try to grow a plant in an isolated soil medium but add no water, and it will not grow. I add water (while controlling for other variables such as nutrients, diseases, pests, etc.), and it likely grows. Therefore, it's safe to accept as an "absolute truth" that plants need water. The same is true for fertilizer studies, or any other true scientific study (which all "science" is definitely not). These are obviously very simplistic examples, but the same logic applies to any other good science that produces repeatable results using the scientific method.
The only "absolute" truth that can exist on humans level of perception is that which is consistently repeatable. That's what "good science" offers. Anything else is just faith, which is fine, but requires just that: faith. Repeatable science doesn't require faith at all, because it's simple enough to "prove" it. Any good scientist understands that we don't know it all. In fact, we only know a fraction of what there is to know, and even less about the why. However, we do have a body of results that are reproduceable, and they are the closets thing to absolute truth that we have . . . other than, you know, faith based religions and thoughts. The body of science knowledge increases daily and builds off of itself. Hypotheses are disproven, others are reaffirmed. That working body of knowledge is perceived as truth because it's the best we have at this time. As soon as we have or know better, we adjust accordingly (as more or better "facts" are available).
As for the evolution vs. creationist debate, I've never understood that. When I first learned about evolution, I couldn't help but think about how it makes the creationist viewpoint even more amazing and beautiful. They are not mutually exclusive, imo.