Sam Harris argues that "morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science".
Harris has a Bachelors in philosophy and is currently working on an advanced degree in neuroscience. He should know better.

I'm sure you're familiar with all the youtube videos, all the documentaries (mainly by the BBC), and all the rants on atheist forums all over the net addressing Intelligent Design's great flaw.
The great flaw I'm speaking of is that IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

A major gripe of mine is that none of these videos, documentaries or youtube videos actually explain what science IS, and apparently, Harris doesn't know either.

There is a branch of philosophy (philosophy of science) that lays it all out.
The rules of evidence, etc etc.

Harris is doing the exact thing that nonbelievers are accusing the ID proponents of. Trying to get something that is not science accepted as a science.

Either Harris hasn't connected the dots, or he is not able to.
Until I read his article, I actually saw Harris as a ray of light, so to speak, since he is pretty much the only nonbeliever in the spotlight that has actually studied philosophy. That ray of light is extinguished.

I'm not going to get into a long essay about how his "science of morality" is never going to be a science.

I can explain it to you real quick.
Science is REPEATABLE.
Morality is NOT.
Square peg. Round hole.

I am looking forward to Harris demonstrating how morality is a science.
Can he use the scientific method and come to repeatable conclusions on issues of morality?
If you ask several people a moral question, you will not get repeatable answers. You will get many different answers. There is no black and white, like there is in science.

Science requires that the scientific method works with any particular claim.
To fall short of this is to fall short of science.

Below is the link to the article that got my goat.
Please comment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html