The short answer is "no". And the reason is that you have engaged in a false dichotomy argument, where the only possible worldviews to explain human moral sense would be active creationism, vs. reductive materialism, plus the argument that consciousness and values are incompatible with full material reduction. These are NOT the only possible worldviews one may assume to explain our moral sense. Most relevant, most materialists, even reductionist leaning ones, do not take reduction to its logical limit and are not absolute reductionists, and hold by worldviews that somehow accommodate both consciousness and morality even if their base logic has some internal inconsistencies as a result. The most common materialist alternative, as one of many possible examples, is that consciousness can be emergent from matter, and morality can be emergent from consciousness interacting with sociology and evolution.
Longer answer -- many "materialists" accept that abstract objects, things like math, or social conventions, or morality, actually exist. In philopshy, this is called math realism, or moral realism, or abstract object realism, depending on what subset of this set one is talking about, and falls under the broad title of plationism. Many "materialists" are actually matter/idea dualists -- and the general recognition that materialism is probably wrong is why pretty much all such philosophers now call themselves "physicalists" instead. Others take a strong emergentist approach, in which things which don't have a substrate, things like an ecosystem, or a species, (or consciousness, or a society) can exist as emergent phenomena mostly independent of their material substrate. This is a non-reductive physicalism, and almost all physicalists today are physcialist/platonists, or emergent non-reductive physicalists. All of these non-absolutely-reductive physicalist worldviews can be compatible with morality.
Additionally, you further assume that in a spiritual dualism worldview, all knowledge is only possible as a result of explicit divine gift. This is another inappropriate assumption, as spiritual dualists NEED NOT EVEN BELEIVE IN A GOD. Most Buddhists, and most Shamans and many New Age spiritual dualists do not believe in a God, yet see no problem actually learning about morality, math, or the rules of a game. Your belief that knowledge can only come through divine gift -- is not accepted by pretty much anyone else. Including, of course, most other theists.
Reductive materialists DO have difficulty making any sense of morality, or of consciousness, but focusing on them as the only alternative to your particular version of theism is a straw man fallacy, as well as a false dichotomy fallacy.
So, to summarize the long answer -- you have based your "proof" on a false dichotomy and several unexamined assumptions which are pretty widely rejected, hence it is not a valid "proof"