I agree that there are values in science. I've written about the Faustian, Promethean, or Luciferian agendas implicit in secular humanism, for example.

I had a related discussion with the commenter, Laurence Mailaender, about whether objective values would entail intersubjective agreement. Certainly, there are difference in tastes and cultures, but there are also some commonalities, such as the distinction between high and low cultures, as reflected in the split between the artistic counterculture and the low-brow mainstream.

Another question is whether aesthetic values exist in the objective, detached perspective on nature, regardless of whether we agree on the interpretations. Just because folks disagree doesn't mean they're all wrong or right. Maybe it's just hard to figure out what the best art is since doing so would amount to decoding the meaning of life.

Then again, maybe no intersubjective agreement is needed because the aesthetic values should be understood in Kantian terms: what's objective isn't just the external subject matter, but how it strikes the subject with his or her background knowledge. The difference in value judgments reflects our different backgrounds, but what's objective is that nature's susceptible to being aesthetically interpreted when we detach from those personal and social backgrounds, and reflect on the magnitude of what's physically transpiring all around us.