Evolution can't really explain the behavior of specific modern individuals who go against the prevailing morality in their culture, because a) they're modern, and b) they're individuals.
Is this true about all science
Oh, heavens no. There's loads of research in moral psychology that I am sure could help you out. In fact, if you're interested I would really suggest Marc Hauser's book
Moral Minds, which has come out recently....it's a treasure trove of all sorts of interesting experimental data about how we think about morality, plus he's a good writer so he makes it come across accessibly and interestingly. It's just that evolutionary psychology is best used for explaining
universal traits of human behavior. If a tendency isn't universal, it's hard to say that it has an evolutionary basis.
Does this mean that science is limited, unable to answer any question?
Is science limited? Sure. Science can't tell you whether chocolate cake is better than apple pie, or irises are prettier than roses, or the Beastie Boys are better than Beck. Matters of taste are pretty much off limits.
There are two other areas that are off limits, but with caveats: the supernatural and morality. The party line is that science is methodologically naturalistic, so it can't comment on the existence of the supernatural. But most belief in supernatural agents include them interacting with the natural world in some way (granting prayers, causing or preventing natural disasters, etc.), and you can study those. Studies on prayer have already been conducted using hospital patients and having anonymous people pray for them. A friend of mine is conducting fMRI studies of different kinds of prayer to see what's happening in the brain when people perform them.
As for morality-- you're not supposed to derive an "ought" from an "is." That's the naturalistic fallacy again....just because something
is the case doesn't mean it
should be. But at the same time you can't formulate moral judgments in a vacuum, independent of what is actually happening in reality. So science might not be able to tell us what is moral, but at least it should be able to inform our moral judgments by revealing truths about existence.
P.S. Thank you for your help. I think I understand, and it makes perfect sense to me. As a matter of fact, I agree completely.
Not at all, it's nice to have productive discussion without drama and sniping.