Who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? Yet that essential knowledge, generally assumed to come from parental teaching or religious or legal instruction, could turn out to have a quite different origin...Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist...propose(s) that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution....I wonder if I should be surprised that the NYT (and "science" apparently) is only today discovering what "religion" has known for millennia: religions don't create morality at all, they simply attempt to draw people back to the morality that each one of us innately comprehends.
The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.
Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, Dr. Hauser writes, implying that the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine...
Unfortunately, because of the separation of church and science, Dr. Hauser cannot use that as an explanation for his discovery. So after making very careful measurements and writing impressive scientific studies he must invent a story about how such morality might have been subconsciously preserved since hunter-gatherer days because morality increased the survival odds of the group*. In the strange world of the evolutionist, survival defines morality.
A far better story, I think, is to change the cause and effect back into a more likely arrangement: the universe was created for the good of mankind, and when mankind acts morally (i.e. in line with the purposes of creation) he's far more likely to survive. And if we look closely enough, we'll see that truth written in far more places than just a few Harvard studies**.
* This is known as "group selection," a theory frowned on by other biologists for the banal reason that there is not a shred of evidence that such a thing exists outside its necessity in evolutionary fairy stories.
** "Tell you?" screamed the witch. "Tell you what is written in letters as deep as a spear is long on the World Ash Tree?"