At its core,

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think it's fairly clear that there's some things in old folks' cultural wisdom and religious teachings that may be applicable today, just as there's a large amount that absolutely isn't.

Agreed.

I'd argue that whatever is applicable today is only applicable through interpretation. I.e. the actual facts in the story aren't a moral guide. Rather, the way we interpret and react to those facts is the moral guide. Which means that the specifics are not what's useful to us, but our modern, contemporary reaction is.

The genius is in the fact that, like wuf hinted at, these stories have managed to encode something meaningful to us, despite large separations in culture and time.

I'd certainly lean towards science being able to answer questions of morality, pretty much the only limitations to that are our knowledge and understanding. It's a simple algorithm really: which option minimizes net suffering (priority 1) and maximizes net happiness (priority 2).

Until and unless you can quantify and measure "net suffering" and "net happiness," science has nothing to say on these topics.

Furthermore, you'll need to find a way to demonstrate, via incontrovertible, observable data, that utilitarianism is always the superior moral framework above all other moral frameworks.