No. Science inherently can't give answers to questions on "what to do" It's not an answer machine. It just helps in fact seeking .

>High risk of child death tends to lead to more children, not less.

That's just a correlation, nothing more. Even trying to prove a direct causation is super difficult. Kant's objections against the vaccines were pretty en vouge at the time. And most importantly scientifically "correct". Whatever that means.

Law systems are not based on science. law systems are based on morale systems. Nothing in nature implies that the rule "do not kill" is inherent. It just makes morally sense.

You can build with scientific facts whatever death cult you want for example. First rule is to kill as much humans as possible. Try to use as much technology, organization and empirical evidence on how to kill a human as fast as possible and as many as possible. And so on. Oh wait. That's exactly what happened already in Germany 1940

Science is not a religion it's a method to approach problems. There is nothing to be advertised. The actually religion today is an ideology around success, capitalism, materialism and so on. The empirical evidence is only used to push one or another ideology. The scientific method is valueless and therefore useless as any kind of ideology. It's like saying "this awesome hammer I am using is my ideology"

Emmanuel Kant was against the vaccine because he thought it further increases the already big population. It's very cruel but based purely on facts.

The advertised new ideologies are individualized and group focused. Like the rise of conspiracy theories. Or calls to "follow the science". Also a ridiculous statement. Sabine Hossenfelder as a good video about that.