The author apparently fails to understand nearly everything relevant to his argument, which - not surprisingly - makes his argument naive and logically void. First of all, empirical scientific enquiry works precisely because it is rooted in empiricism, e.g. the real world. Mythologies (e.g. religions) are rooted only in the human imagination and therefore have little or no bearing on reality. Thus looking to myths for "answers" to any real-world problem is unlikely to result in anything other than catastrophically low-quality outcomes.

Yes, we do indeed have many problems in the world but very few are a consequence of science. All the major issues we face are a consequence of ordinary ignorant foolish people preferring to adopt vacuous soundbite beliefs (modern myths) rather than accept the complexities science reveals. It's hardly the fault of science that so many US politicians pretend evolution is "a lie" and that climate change is "fake news." Moreover, we see an interesting phenomenon: those denying empirical data are also those who are most keen on primitive mythologies like Christianity.

So, all in all, the author's thesis fails completely.