This isn't to say evolution doesn't have value but the point is there is no way which I can see to make testable predictions which are falsifiable based off the theory of evolution. Also when we discuss the theory of evolution there are many gaps in it, and then there is no single theory of evolution but more origin of life theories which are encompassed to an umbrella term "theory of evolution".
It includes concepts like panspermia which are interesting but hard to prove. Primordial soup is just an educated guess and really not much better than a creation myth. My point is sometimes its better to admit that we don't know something than to try to fill in the gaps with theories backed by science. Evolution is a theory which over time has become backed by some actual science but the theory itself is not science.
For example life science has taught us a lot about the behavior of cells (such as bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics), and we have learned a lot of knowledge about chemistry and medicine. At the same time evolution while it does provide a suitable explanation, as it at least provides a plausible theory for how life evolved, or how species evolved, or how a common ancestor could branch out, and this is backed by observations, fossils, etc, it's not at all clear what life actually is, or how life originated.
Evolution explains how life evolves which is valuable in itself. Origin of life questions in my opinion cannot be answered. Primordial soup, panspermia, etc, are just explanation to help people feel better about the fact that no one knows. The Big Bang Theory is also a set of beliefs about the origin of the universe which cannot be tested, and which is in place to help people feel better about the fact that no one really knows.
Science can answer a lot of questions, provided us with the standard model, with experimental physics, with the laws of physics as we currently understand them, and none of this can tell us how the universe originated, or what life is. We can know how life evolves, we can trace all the fossils back to single cell organisms, and we can be confident that the process of evolution took place, and still have no clue as to the origin of life.
Now, if I'm wrong and there are some legit experiments which meet the standard of being falsifiable then I'd like to see it. As far as I know evolution is controversial to think of it as science.
References
I think you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution is about the changes in species over time and it has great predictive power for both explaining the past and the future, as do many scientific theories (that's why they are called theories, a word scientists use differently than non-scientists). Other examples include the theory of gravity or germ theory.
I'm not sure how we got on the topic of origins of life when discussing Harris' views on the role of science in morality. For me, it's about predictive powers and science has them. Utilitarianism (or most any other framework for morality) eventually falls back on a system for maximizing wellbeing which is the same thing Harris is saying. If we care about predictive powers for figuring out what works best given that framework of maximizing wellbeing, the scientific method is the best tool we have so far because it gives us predictive powers. It doesn't give us "proofs" like math or logic.
Fair enough, the Theory of Evolution on Wikipedia seems to include abiogenesis and concepts of survival of the fittest. Certain parts of the theory aren't based in science. That doesn't mean other parts of it can't be tested, or aren't scientific. It's not like the Standard Model though where it's the most accurate description of reality we have, but more Evolution is useful because it's simply good enough.
I agree, science does have predictive powers. Science also gives us truth in a way where there is no certainty about anything. Morality is about logic, proof, mathematics, but not necessarily truth. It's very subjective and so there aren't universal laws or anything like that which science can deliver.
Not necessarily the case. First how would you define wellbeing? Then wellbeing for who exactly? The individual has a self interest so it could be good for them or not good for them. Then you have the species, where humans could seek wellbeing for the species but not other species, and so on. Ultimately it's subjective.
We could say wellbeing is simply to make all available brains "satisfied" but that is simply utilitarianism again. Utilitarianism has it's problems though because there are individuals and individuals might not want to live for the happiness of the group or the wellbeing of all brains on earth. Neuroscience is interesting, but it's not morality in my opinion and is more about self understanding.
The answers to these questions are why I appreciate the book the Moral Landscape. It's about comparing and contrasting experiences of conscious beings, even if we can't measure them exactly we can say "this is a peak" or "that's a valley" when compared together.
I wrote more and then deleted it because we just don't view science or truth similarly, and I don't see much point in quoting wikipedia pages to support my opinion at the moment. To me, science isn't about providing unchanging, universal truth, it's a framework for disproving a hypotheses in such a way that others can come to similar conclusions and confidently build on the results. It's always open to change and correction.
When did I say science is about unchanging truth? It's just the truth according to science, which really is the best measurement we have. So we agree on science if you go by the Wikipedia definition of science.
Where we disagree is on where science can be applied. I don't think it can be applied to ought questions, or why, or origin.
I don't view mental states in a way where we can answer questions of ought. Neuroscience shows us mental states but it doesn't in my opinion transfer into morality. I don't think morality can be reduced to mental states in practice. I think morality is a matter of what people value and sure with deep enough understanding of the mental states you might have a clue, but ultimately I think it's the individual who has to make some choice as to what to value and just reading mental states isn't the same as for instance written consent.
Can it be at some point? It depends on the accuracy of the brain to computer interface. But it still doesn't change that value is subjective. It would seem you are claiming that somehow we can have objective values or universally shared values and that is where ultimately we have disagreement, not in the definition of science because we can go with the same definition (yours) and I still wouldn't agree with your conclusion. It's narrowed down to whether or not values are subjective.
Yes you can have a morality based on consensus but we already have that. That isn't necessarily personal morality, but is more what society and public sentiment views as right and wrong. You could in theory connect all brains and have public sentiment decide what is right and wrong in real time but that is only one kind of morality and erases individual morality in favor of consensus morality.
I am very skeptical of any claim of moral authority. Including the claim that science can create the moral authority and determine what is best for everyone. Communists believed something similar about the government. Moral realism I think is incorrect and to accept your view as true I would have to believe in moral realism. Currently I think moral anti-realism is a better way. This doesn't mean there might not be an optimal decision a person can make in theory, or a best decision, as rational choice theory and or decision theory can show, but it simply means that no one else can determine it on your behalf unless they know your preferences and current values as they change in real time. An AI might be able to do this but it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it's the problem of "wellbeing" which again you don't define clearly in a way where everyone agrees. You can use polls but these are approximations.
References
Take the wellbeing approach, without a clear definition but lets say its based on mental states? Now assume an AI is in charge of all moral decisions. Is it going to be moral for humans to have individuality and free will if an AI can control everyone to guarantee with 100% certainty that the most moral decisions are made at all times?
There is no free will in science or individual in science.