I've always felt that science is the search for answers to "how?" questions, not "why?".
It can be both.
"Why" could be: "Why did this apple fall?" "Why is it falling at the same speed as this lead ball?"
"How" could be: "How did this apple fall at the same speed as this lead ball?" (which is basically the same question) "How did this apple fall?" could be a leader question. You answer how by finding out that the stem was "rotting" but that doesn't cover why it didn't fall up.
You cannot assume, however, that "Why" has intent. This, IMHO, is the abstraction layer you are looking at the question. "Why did that moron turn in front of me?!" Looking at the "Why" at the personal scope (ie: intent) you can easily forget that they had a process in their head that triggered them to do that. They might not have seen you ("How did they not see me?"), they might not have calculated your speed properly("How did they pass math/physics?")... they most likely didn't intend to pull out in front of you unless they had a chemical reaction to you or the situation (anger, desire, etc.)
Just as in the question of "Why are we here?" Once you get beyond the personal scope of the question, you can look into the real answer to the question.
The problem here is that you are assuming intent.