My spiritual views have no conflict with science. I don't have any one text to refer to. Shaktism alone has a bunch of texts (most not available in English or are pretty expensive to buy in English translations, but you don't need the texts to be a Shakta since it's more of an experiential thing and way of viewing the world in the first place), but there's no doctrine or dogma. You kind of have to make of it what you will.
I'm also a Satanist, but that's more of a philosophical thing for me. I do not believe in a literal Satan as a being. It's symbolism and an archetype for me that informs how I view society and has to do with internal psychological processes. It, along with my Shakta views, are a way of attaining spiritual and psychological wholeness and balance (my user title is a hint at that, too). It's a Jungian thing, for me.
This doesn't add anything useful to the thread. The OP is about crediting science. Simply saying there is no conflict with science is unrelated to the discussion.