Mrrzy, you don't seem to have fully grasped what M.Ted said about science and the universe. He is quite correct - if the universe makes no sense, science could not study it. If there was no order in it there would be no discoverable 'laws'. Therefore the universe must have both sense and order. I do see however that you say "Science is the best way known, so far, for investigating nature. It doesn't speak to anything else" which is an admission that science is of no use in addressing questions of supernatural and abstractions like morality.
On another thread you posted "And science *can* speak to what ought to be - for instance, there are no clear-cut biological distinctions among the races, which supports the idea that there ought not to be racism. (But if there were such biological divisions, racism would still be wrong, so then again, maybe not. Maybe it's SCIENTISTS who can speak to the right/wrong thingie)"

That sounds a bit confused to me - on the one hand you're saying science can guide us morally (the example of races) on what ought to be: racism is wrong since science can find no clear-cut biological differences between races. But on the other hand you say that even if it could find such clear-cut differences, racial discrimination would still be wrong. This tells me that a) you're not too sure yourself whether or not science can be a moral guide and that b) you have a strong sense or indeed conviction that morality (i.e right and wrong) are considertaions that transcend whatever empirical data science gives us. To be fair, you acknowledge as much, but this still leaves the question of where to go from there.

This means we are at last starting to sing from the same hymn-sheet. I hold that morality is not something that can be based simply on empirical scientific data alone (though science can help give an empirical basis to our rationale for morality, as in the case of 'human from conception') but must be based on something science alone can't address.

When you say 'maybe scientists can speak to the right / wrong thingie' I'm interested, but we'd have to see on what basis scientists are going to do this - clearly not from the basis of empirical science alone. We have already seen that science gives the empirical data, it requires something beyond science to make value judgements about the data and what should be done about same.

In short, science should stick to doing what science is good at - namely describing the natural world - and morality should come from some other source.

But morality should have supersedence over science when scientific activity conflicts with morality (e.g the Nazis' experiments on people in a dozen fields of research)

Bill D, Amos, thanks for your replies to my question - I more-or-less agree with a number of the things you're saying. But no time to go into same in detail here.