Science is descriptive where religion is prescriptive.

This is true, but also it’s prescriptive about different things… religion is focused on morality, which isn’t the kind of thing science is useful for; morality is a philosophical and religious thing.

This is how Adonai can be a total git and yet declared as just and righteous and benevolent by fiat, what raises challenges to the properties of justice, righteousness or benevolence. Apologists usually retreat to semantics.

Or “the lord moves in mysterious ways,” type hand waving.

Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula

I wouldn’t call that science, that’s philosophy

Science has its own approach to morality, which is to frame it as a consequentialist formula. Exempli gratia, looking at the histories of civilization, we can see that whenever the bourgoisie neglects the needs of the proletariat, civil unrest, genocide and war follow. Therefore, we might infer that a) the bourgeoisie might be able to defer civic collapse by establishing and enforcing unconditional civil rights and accommodations for its population, and b) that no society has ever been able to do this in perpetuity. The thousand year reich is still a fiction.

This is … a political science theory relying on haphazard historiography, maybe?

I do not know anyone claiming to have a “science of morality” that u would consider to be scientific, or moral…