> Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.
At least they aren't allowed to. Even if you don't allow to derive 'ought' from 'is', facts and reasoning can transform some simple 'oughts' into interesting consequences.
Ie 'ought' plus 'is' can derive you another 'ought'.
You still have to pick your initial 'oughts', of course.
I agree with your first paragraph!
Science rarely speaks authoritatively on moral questions.