Comment 10 by MilitantNonStampCollector :

“If man didn’t have a moral compass and did what was right in his own eyes, we would be in not only a strange society but a scary society,” said Gabriella van Breda.

We have our own moral compass drilled into us through evolution. We taught it to ourselves and can continue teaching without invoking deities. The mammals cared for each other millions of years before human consciousness and we evolved our own values on the back of this. Now the religious have hijacked this as their own... but it belongs to the natural... not the supernatural.

I agree with you that morality can be defined without God but I don't agree that all that definition can come just by looking at evolution. Dawkins doesn't believe that either, he says so in the intro to The Selfish Gene. What you are doing is called the Naturalistic Fallacy, assuming that because evolution encourages something it is good from a human ethical standard. If we were to base our morals strictly on evolution then all men would all be arguing for polygomy and no human would stay with a woman partner once she passed the age where she was an effective breeder and their children were raised.

I do agree that studying evolutionary biology can give us insights into our own morality but that's all, there has to be more to morality then just looking at the science of evolution. I think the question of how to define morality without God is still an open one. Harris thinks that all the answers will come from Neurophysiology. I'm not completely convinced he is correct but I do think its an intensely interesting question.