My point is that science cannot explain how “Good” got to be “good”. It can’t see it with the tools it has wisely limited itself to.
To science, purely scientifically, dead is no better than alive, pain no better than comfort, kindness no better than cruelty.
And to logic, or philosophy, values can only be conditional, “If/then”. Each better than relies on a previous premise - always conditional: IF life is better than death then..
To arrive an an unconditional value, requires, by the nature of the tools available, some knowledge beyond either science or logic.
This is the sphere of religion. And in this area, our absolute values, everyone has them, or acts as if they do. Even you; even Dawkins.
Science depends on accurate definitions. To directly respond, I would need to know your definition of good and better. Scientists are people and subject to their cultursl memes. They think alive is better than dead, comfort is better than pain, and kindness is better than cruelty. Darwin was a kind man. Dawkins is obnoxious, but he probably loves his kids.