Science, by itself, can determine moral truths

Hi, thanks for accepting.First, a clarification. You said, "I will be arguing that we can through logical [arguments?] create a moral code.". This is not the resolution I asked to debate. We are not arguing whether morality can have a logical/rational basis, only that science alone is insufficient to serve as the basis of morality.Second, I am a atheist and therefore concede the truth of evolution.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________My argument is based largely on the fact/value distinction (1). This distinction posits that statements of fact and those of value are fundamentally different.My argument is that:1. Science can only provide evidence to support statements of fact2. A statement of value cannot be derived from a statement of fact3. Therefore, science alone cannot provide evidence from which we can derive statements of value1. Science can only provide evidence to support statements of factScience is aimed at uncovering how the universe works and not how it ought to be. For example, science can provide explanations for how a the human eye works, or how the tides come and go. In both of these cases, science aims to explain how complicated physical systems function. A moral value is not a description of a physical system. Instead it is a statement of how that system should be. When we say murder is wrong, we are not saying how murder functions. Rather we are making a claim on what direction the universe should take, i.e., less murder. The scientific establishment today abhors making statements of direction in nature because such claims are outside of what can be empirically observed (2).2. A statement of value cannot be derived from a statement of factThe gulf between facts and values has been argued for by multiple philosophers (1). I will focus on two: David Hume and G.E. Moore.David Hume, the famed 18th century Scottish philosopher, argued that there is a fundamental gap between facts and values (3). In his Treatise of Human Nature (1738), he pointed to the fact that moral statements had a motivational character. If I believed it was wrong to steal, I would want to stop stealing. Yet, If I do not believe stealing is wrong, the sheer fact that I know someone is stealing will not motivate me at all. Given that statements of fact do not contain a motivational element but values do, Hume thought the latter could not be totally explained by the former. G.E. Moore, a British philosopher, followed up this discussion in his Principia Ethica (1903). Within this book, he describes the naturalistic fallacy (4). This fallacy suggests that nothing in nature can be logically identical to goodness because we can always reasonably ask if that natural fact is truly good. For example, we could always ask "is pleasure truly good?". Asking if pleasure is good is not the same as asking, "Is 2+2 truly 4" because we understand that pleasure and goodness are not identical in the way 2+2 and 4 are. Given that nothing in nature is logically identical to goodness, no scientific finding can establish a moral truth.In sum, I have argued that science only gives us facts about how the world works. In addition, moral truth cannot be derived from statements of fact. As such, science alone cannot form the basis for a moral system. Science may play a role in helping us understand how to achieve various ends but is powerless on determing what ends are those that are truly moral.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://www.gutenberg.org...(4) http://fair-use.org...