I agree that science answers the questions of "How" and not of "Why".
Phrased that way, it sounds too much like "non-overlapping magisteria", which I find to be complete nonsense. Given any testable claim, you can examine it with science regardless of if it's phrased "how", "why", "what", "when", "who" or "where". However, if you mean something more along the lines of "science can tell you what is true but doesn't tell you what to do with that truth" then I might agree.
I think Varg may have meant to say something along the lines of what Drake Blackpaw said near the beginning of the thread (if this isn't the case, Varg, please clarify what you meant to say)
There are some things science will never be able to explain for the simple reason that science answers the question how, but not why. So science may indeed figure out exactly how the universe was formed, the full inner workings of the human body and many of the other mysteries that we study today, but it won't be able to explain why there is a universe, or why any of us are here.
Questions involving the word "why"
tend to fall under a philosophical line of thought, and also tend to have subjective answers and to not be testable. Such questions are, for all intents and purposes, not answerable under the paradigm of science, but the purpose of science isn't to manufacture answers to such questions in the first place. There is a "line" of sorts, but it isn't completely hard cut.
Consider, for example, the question "Is it wrong to kill?". This is a philosophical question, and thus isn't really answerable by science. However, there are similar questions that *are* answerable by science and/or reasoning. For instance, an answer to a question like "To what degree and in what ways can a society permit the killing of other individuals and still remain socially and politically stable?" can be sought using thought experiments, historical evidence, and assumptions derived from sociology. Similarly, the question "Under what moral systems is it considered wrong to kill, and how absolute is each moral system on this position?" can be answered by analyzing homicide under different moral theories (I'm bending the definition of "science" a bit here), and the question "To what degree and for what reasons does society consider killing to be wrong?" can be answered by psychology/sociology using a survey. All of these questions that are answerable by science procure valuable information, but none of them directly answer the first posed question.
An answer to this question, if an answer to this specific question is deemed required, can be derived from a more philosophical paradigm (for this case, a moral paradigm such as Utilitarianism or Hedonism could produce a relevant answer). Religion, in this particular case and in several others, is capable of producing some answer as well, but unlike the methods of science, almost any (if not every) answer to the question is bound to be subjective, and therefore not universal.
(*heads to bed, and may or may not continue his practically nonexistent, infinitesimally thin, and sleep debt induced thread of thought later...*)
