I am a extreme advocate for science and a complete atheist, but completely disagree that any of the points he brings up in his TED talk actually support his thesis. I think he is confounding being able to discover logical fallacies in existent (moral) arguments with the possibility for innate derivation or at least making a very large leap of faith. I remain unmoved from the notion pure science is strictly observational and every single decision for prescriptive action is, at its core, a value judgement.

The core question for most prescriptive action is often simply determining the limits of the self, that is, how do we delimit the boundary between the self vs. the other, and what are the bounds that we choose to extend empathy to?

Is the near-self or that which empathy extends to everything that biologists have classified as homo sapien? Is it confined to ourselves and a handful of close friends? Is the boundary defined at humans sharing similar values, goals, and culture? Is it extended to all animals with a central nervous system? How can we determine what this value ought to be scientifically?

"The seperation between science and human values is an illusion, and actually quite a dangerous one at this point"

This seems to ignore historically that, more often than not, science is used as ex post facto justification. Darwinism and natural selection is a true scientific observation with mountains of supporting evidence. It was also later adopted as a central logical doctrine for the most abhorrent policies of Nazism. A logical argument for eugenics could be made, but remains abhorrent because in Nazism, the near-self vs other distinction drops off in a freefall across subsets of humanity. This contrasts strongly with today's average definition of near-self considered to be the set of all that is homo-sapien.

The set, degree, and unit by which we extend empathy in the self vs. other distinction IS the core of human values and he does not offer a derivation.

I suppose I should reserve final judgement until I investigate his book you mentioned more thoroughly.

From watching the video of him at TED, I don't think he got to expound on his ideas to the extent that they'd be done justice. The God Delusion does a fantastic job of showing how morality can be entirely derived from science, logic, and reason. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it!

I read his book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason". I thought it was incredibly well written and presented some awesome points in favor of doing away with religion (however, I'm obviously biased as an atheist).

I haven't watched his TED talk yet, but I'll be checking it out asap.

The idea of "evolutionary morality" is covered in depth by Richard Dawkins quite often and really makes sense when you look at it. A society that avoids immoral behavior (moral meaning there is a victim, not religious-based moral ideals) benefits mutually. It's basically a moral version of the prisoners dilemma. I personally would rather have a society that bases morality on logic, reason, and thought than on fear of retribution from an angry man in the sky :)