The advantage of a science is that it sufficiently dilineates a portion of the world we live in and analyzes those features that systematically cohere in it.
This makes it a safe zone: you can do ethics without becoming a mathematician, you can be a successful lawyer without ever touching a musical instrument. This also turns into a huge problem in academia, nobody realy has the need for a colleague outside of their own discipline. :(
I don't have time to discuss that broad topic right now, but I agree it is a mistake to exaggerate or overextend the competence of any discipline.
When I argue for evolution on these threads it is purely concerning worldly knowledge in a particular area. I do not think evolution tells us anything about how we should behave.
It might, however, make useful predictions about how people are likely to behave.
Oh my, this is such a huge problem these days, when we think we can "slice and dice" the episteme six ways to Sunday at will. Descartes largely gets the blame for this. But I don't think there was any way he could have seen this sort of thing "coming"; and I think he would have been appalled, mortified, if he had seen it.
These days disciplines spawn subdisciplines, which in turn spawn their own subdisciplines, seemingly ad infinitum. What is presently, acutely needed in our own time is not more and more specialist knowledge, but the integration of extant human knowledge from all sources to date. IMHO FWIW.
Then we could confidently (more or less) move on to the next level of human knowledge and discovery....
This is certainly false in the sciences and mathematics. I cannot speak for other fields. It is more nearly true that "one has a need for a colleague in one's own field."