But I agree with what you've implicitly said: science hasn't solved all the world's problems. So what is someone with a scientific worldview supposed to do in the meantime about these problems?
I like this line of thought - just thought I would add - as you suggested someone would. There is no meantime. In this worldview - looking for answers is what your goal is - you don't want a complete answer for everything (by this I me literally EVERYTHING). The fun is in the looking. When all is known, science will serve no more function. Then all we have is a very big library.
I know that a warm and fuzzy reassuring answer can be given to the above question within the fold of the scientific worldview -- in fact I'm sure someone on the list will provide it, but in practice these things are simply ignored within that worldview. (How many books do you own that deal with things on the first list? And on the second?)
The reason it is ignored is because it is not a feature of the scientific worldview. This worldview does not have a desire to explain what is beyond its scope. For the same reason the religion cant deal with the question "Why is the sky Blue", Science cant answer many questions regarding complex, abstract or metaphorical issues. If you try to use the science too for that, then you intuitively know to expect a high rate of failure. When you get to gang violence, and issues of that level, then exact answers don't exist. You use odds, trial and error.
Bill Roh