Nobody is trying to destroy science. We just want to see it used for what it's meant to be used for. Not as a weapon used to bludgeon those who disagree with you into submission forcing them to accept and follow your world view, not as a tool used to advance your political and religious ideology.
Science cannot deal with the more critical issues of morals, without which society ceases to function.
Intellect does not equal morals.
We have had too many examples of intellectualism without morals in recent history to be comfortable with that thought.
Nobody is trying to destroy science. We just want to see it used for what it's meant to be used for. Not as a weapon used to bludgeon those who disagree with you into submission forcing them to accept and follow your world view, not as a tool used to advance your political and religious ideology.
Given your posting history you should not be attempting to lecture scientists on what science is, nor how it should be applied.
The post you just made is a prime example. What it appears that you are advocating is censoring science where it disagrees with your religious belief. You want to pick and choose from among the sciences and censor the results that you don't agree with.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Your first problem is to view the theory of evolution as antithetical to or incompatible with a theory of morality. A vital field of research in evolutionary theory is what is called "the evolution of cooperation" which is what morality is about. You might look it up some time.
If morality were inconsistent with the survival of society it would have died long ago, but quite the opposite has happened. Those societies that are the strongest over time are the most moral, and when morality weakens societies weaken. The mistake you make is to confound individual survival with societal survival and assume that the theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest" will generate the dominance of the individual over a society.
But that is not even the case in the wild's of Africa. Predators in Africa live a very precarious existence. Troops of baboons protect themselves against leopard quite effectively. Yes leopard survive and capture baboons, but the population density of leopard is quite low because their ability to pick something off is pretty meager.
Second, what you and your friends are attempting to do is put a boundary around what science can study beyond which you have demarked an unknown territory where there be dragons. But that is not what science does. It simply looks at facts and tries to create and explanatory model for those facts which can be elevated to theory or even law if it is broad enough and sustained by all observed facts over a period of time.
You cannot counter a theory by saying one cannot have one on a specific topic but rather you must put forward observable facts that are inconsistent with that theory.