It's possible to go too far with anything, so it logically follows that some must put too much stock in science.
However I do think it's telling that every time we shine the light of science into another corner of the universe, we don't see God at work. When the earliest Bible books were written, God was described as walking about on top of the canopy that held back the primordial waters, occasionally opening a window to let out some rain. Now we are peering down below the level of atoms and above the scale of the galaxy and still haven't found God.
When people ran out of physical places to hide God, they made him immaterial and abstract. But in the process, his hand in everyday events seems to diminish and diminish. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but I think science advocates often feel justified in extrapolating from this trend and jumping ahead to the end, where we presumably learn the last new fact about the universe one day, and see that God isn't there either; that the universe is just a machine chugging along on its own.
That's not to say that God can be disproven by science. He would presumably exist outside our universe and thus be beyond our ability to study. But a theist believes that God interacts with our universe, and so eventually we would hope to see evidence of these interactions. Thus, if every action and reaction within the universe can be explained without divine intervention, it naturally tends to put the kibosh on theism.
I don't advocate the idea that anything not scientifically proven must be rejected from our worldview. However, supernatural explanations of our world are inherently untestable if God does not want to reveal his hand in things. So scientists reject these suppositions out of necessity, not because they are determined to reject the possibility of God affecting our world.
