I agree with the bolded part completely and from that point of view they would be correct,but this isn't science so why take such a narrow minded approach to it,I understand how science works and why science works and how the null hypothesis was developed because I have studied,physics,mathematics and chemistry extensively and I enjoy it,the point is why try to make science your scapegoat to disprove religion,thats not the purpose of science is it.I think these guys are talking from a purely scientific/experimental point of view. The point they are trying to make is that since, at the time, there was no evidence for the existence of electromagnetic waves 3000 years ago, scientifically one would have said, at the time, that in all probability there is no such thing as an electromagnetic wave. That's how science works, something only exists (scientifically) once there is sufficient evidence and there is sufficient statistical significance (meaning that the results are most likely not due t chance). Science cannot work on the premise that something may exist but we can't prove it yet, you always assume the thing does not exist until it can be proven with high confidence that it does exist - the NULL hypothesis.
The absolute existence of something logically does not need science to be able to prove it.The scientific model was developed to prove how the world works and render factual predictable results based on facts and evidence.I'm a huge fan of science but I don't understand why some people see the need to use it incorrectly to supersede logic.