Recall, materialism was contrasted with idealism -- the view that logic, experiences, and abstractions like math, are the base material of the universe.
No, Science does not force us to embrace materialism. The opposite is the case. Science has REFUTED materalism.
This was done most dramatically by Einstien, who showed that matter == energy with E=mc^2. If matter can be made from energy, and turn into energy, then MATTER is not fundamental.
Materialists recast their worldview into "physicalism", where matter and energy are treated as aspects of the same "physical" stuff.
But physics continued to make this problematic. Space itself turns out, in general relativity, to also be an aspect of mass. And as geometry is MATH, and math is a subjest of logic, not the physical -- physicalism then has to be expanded to include LOGIC as "physical". Which pretty much destroys the whole point of materialism as an alternative to idealism.
In quantum mechanics, the base components of matter also turn out to be probability functions. https://plus.maths.org/content/ridiculously-brief-introduction-quantum-mechanics Which are ideal. So it isn't just a subset of the "material" universe (space) which is actually ideal, it is basically ALL OF IT.
Materialism also was an assertion of what is "reality". And it turns out that much of the universe is "dark energy", which is the enegy field of virtual particles. http://hetdex.org/dark_energy/what_is_it/vacuum_energy.html Fitting virtual particles into a "real matter" worldview pushes the limits on "realism".
In addition to these other problems with conventional meanings of matter and "physical", one final effort to assert physicalism was to hold that physical is whatever physics comes up with. But physics has come up with the principle that physics itself is not stable. All laws in physics are actually based on symmetries, and all symmetries are broken. Therefore, physics HAS NO GENERAL LAWS. http://www.pnas.org/content/93/25/14256
Additionally, materialism presupposes some method of dismissing the independent existence of psychology, and reduction of it to matter. Jaegwon Kim holds that the consensus in philosophy of mind is that this effort at reduction for qualia has failed. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7snrs Plus reductionism overall in science is considered a failed project: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/
Daniel Stoljar concludes that physicalism is no longer compatible with 20-21st century science https://www.amazon.com/Physicalism-Problems-Philosophy-Daniel-Stoljar/dp/0415452635.