I completely agree with this statement. It's not the job of science to provide a moral basis, only to discover and interpret data.
Blaming the theory evolution for what Hitler did is like pushing your grandmother down the stairs and blaming the theory of gravitation. Just doesn't make any sense. Scientific observations don't validate anyone's bad behavior.
Just to play devil's advocate here: on what basis would you say that something like a Nazi eugenics program is "bad behavior?" It's a serious question.
It's not the job of science to provide a moral basis, only to discover and interpret data.
I can see your point, and it's perfectly valid as long as one does not contemplate the application of what science tells us. Once one reaches the point of application, however, the moral implications of the science come to the fore: one must confront the difference between "can" and "should."
For example: if we look at what the theory of evolution tells us about how the world really works, one can make an excellent case for a morality in which "the good" is defined in terms of being able to ensure the passing on of one's genes (or "good" genes of some description) by whatever means possible.
We probably strongly agree that putting into practice such a morality would be profoundly wrong -- but given that the natural world really does seem to work that way, it's not empirically obvious that such acts constitute "bad behavior." Our outrage at the idea might plausibly be interpreted as an evolved trait which causes us to work harder to pass on our own genes.....
That Social Darwinism might be "bad behavior" is a judgement you've applied after the fact, based on something apparently in contradiction to what the science seems to tell us. On what basis would you make such a moral claim?