"However, they are merely not the kind of questions that science is able to answer."
Quite true, and fitting of my point.
"You are confusing science and philosophy, physics and metaphysics"
On the contrary. Science (as I argue) IS a philosophy. Physics is the study of nature through observation. This method of study has roots in ancient Greece, and gave reason to quote "Natural events have natural causes, and Man can know them!"
This is a school of thought. Not wrong regarding it's own limited view, but it must recognize that it IS a limited view (as you have done, to your credit)
"These questions belong in philosophy class, not biology class."
Biology is a study of a particular methodology of imperical philosophy (read: science)
On the contrary. Science (as I argue) IS a philosophy.
You are using an archaic connotation of philosophy that includes the physical sciences. The modern usage defines philosophy as the study of leaning and of human knowledge, but is distinct from the technical sciences. Philosophy includes such branches of study as ethics, metaphysics and epistemology. Defining science *as* philosophy for the purpose of including the physical sciences hopelessly muddies the issue, when I and many others have been trying very hard to mark a clear boundry between the physical and metaphysical, and between origins and evolution.