It may even peek into teleological questions. Why questions in physics nowadays get bogged down at about the level of quarks. In biology, structure seems to be answered by the combination of survival-evolution and the efficient causes of chemistry, i.e. physics. Cosmology gets bogged down at about the Big Bang. Practically speaking, science does not treat certain chaotic parts of natural history, nor much of anything about the humanities and social sciences.
Determinism is limited by the scope of events it can determine.
Practically speaking, it is of no help to look at the deepest micro-phenomena to determine questions about, e.g., life. Reductionism microscopically, searches for the deepest answers. Still, reductionism tends to forget about the unified reality of life, so macroscopic questions, though depending on physics, must seek macroscopic answers. But to do any analysis at all, to use analysis to answer a Why question, is already to fly the reductionist flag. I think Tiny Tim is winning, though Weinberg favors Scrooge.