I would disagree that science would 'value' moral feelings as a valid guidance for moral decisions. What you describe would science attribute to human psychology and not to morality.
Science considers itself capable of being
morally neutral and (in general) it considers morality as a relic of religions and superstition that is to be abolished.
(2018)
Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/
The following article shows the state of the art of morality from the perspective of science. It shows that science considers itself to merely have the 'universalization principle' available for deciding between good and wrong.
(2020)
How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don’t seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html
As for evidence in philosophical history, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science that shows that science has attempted to 'overcome' philosophy and morality.
"
The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."
Science has attempted to rid itself of morality and to become the master of itself, i.e. to 'advance immorally' on behalf of the the greater good of science, which is scientism philosophy.
Scientism philosophy concerns the dogmatic belief that science operates without philosophy and morality, as if that by itself is a 'greater good'.
Evidence that it holds true today is the concept "
I believe in science" that has a cult status. From a scientific establishment evolutionary perspective there is the concept 'anti-science' in which so called 'disbelievers' of science are to be persecuted as heretics of science.
A perspective on today's 'war on science' propaganda by an academic philosopher provides a substantiation on the basis of modern times developments:
The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics of GMO as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZV (2018)
In order to denounce people for 'not believing in science' requires science to have an opinion of its validity that stands outside of the scope of morality. Such an opinion is only possible on behalf of an idea of a greater good, which is scientism philosophy that seeks to abolish philosophy and morality as superstitious relics of the past, of which its beginning is historically described by Nietzsche.
Meaning beyond what science can “see”?
Scientific evidence equals repeatability. Consequently, anything that science can potentially understand and explain must possess a repeatable nature.
In my opinion, and perhaps evident in a 'Sixth Sense' idea of a
moral compass involving moral feelings, true morality has a "
beyond science" nature and therefore science cannot grasp or explain it.
Morality concerns an eternal intellectual pursuit of good that is found
in the question (and not the answer) "what is good?".
The moral good is simply
more than the qualitative truth of science and that explains the idea of
morality beyond science.
American philosopher William James once said the following about it:
Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.