Science and Morality

A long, but fascinating discussion of the science of morality (so-called) in the New York Times. The author does an excellent job of demonstrating why science is so helpless when it comes to morality, all the while implying that it will solve the great problem of a universal Moral Law and evolution.
The guy goes on for eight pages and comes close, but can't quite admit that, given the assumptions of evolution, there is no rational basis for a universal Moral Law even though we all show evidence for it. He admits this: Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?
Answer: He has no clue, and must fall back on a vague theory of morality written into the fabric of the universe, much like physical laws, that science is yet to discover. Hmm...this sounds a lot like the Moral Law given by the creator of the universe to me.
This is evolutionary theory's great problem, trying to explain the Moral Law that infests all of us. If they would just pick up Mere Christianity and read the first two chapters, they'd understand.