Your source is exaggerating the scientific portion of Epicurus' impact.
Point 3 - Read the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Epicurus. They have no references to Epicurus proposing anything along the lines of DNA or evolution. IEP also makes it clear that Atomism had been introduced earlier by Democritus. Furthermore, atomism at that time was philosophical theory, with nothing of substance to back it up. It wasn't a scientific theory, so you can disregard it as contributing to science. (Other civilisations have come up with atomism too, by the way).
Point 5 - This Lecture Slide from the University of Texas, Austin treats Epicurus as a sidenote in the helio-centric model. He did not introduce such models at any rate, merely followed in the works of others. Pythagoras, about 200 years earlier, had introduced some models. His main contribution seems to be insisting that the universe is infinite.
Point 4 and Point 2 - There is no scientific evidence for the theory of alternate worlds, or for alien life.
That is not to say that he had no influence on the sciences. Wikipedia states
Epicurus is a key figure in the development of science and the
scientific method because of his insistence that nothing should be
believed, except that which was tested through direct observation and
On the ethics side, he did support the Theory of Reciprocity, but I am not sure whether he introduced it. Wikipedia's page on Epicurus states (without citation)
His statement of the Ethic of Reciprocity as the foundation of ethics
is the earliest in Ancient Greece,
while the Wikipedia page on Golden Rule/Theory of Reciprocity lists other people before him who stated much the same principle in different forms.
On the whole, calling Epicurus the greatest thinker of all times seems to ignore the (small) amount of his own contributions, especially compared to those of others like Newton, Einstein etc.