I read that article last night, jim and I can't say I perceived any sense of "science -does- do morality" in it.
It is still an interesting counterpoint to Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", which I must immediately admit to not reading, though it had an entire Horizon programme about it, back in the days when Horizon programmes still had enough depth to make you feel slightly ignorant.
On the other hand, Dawkins argues that genes selfishly attempt to survive. We think (but cannot yet adequately prove) that genes exist which influence behaviour. Therefore, whilst altruism is a better strategy for survival, the 'behaviour genes' behind it are still being 'selfish'.
Personally, I think not enough thought has been paid to sexual selection factors. Females select their mates to be more powerfully built, more proficient at dominance (hence violent traits have been retained), more acquisitive, more selfish, happy to steal from subordinates and so on. All of which completely subverts altruism, in my opinion.
Morality I perceive to be something which does not emerge until a lot further down the line than the 'feral' stage of human development. Someone, somewhere worked out that bumping off the tribe leader and his cronies every few years was detrimental to stopping the neighbouring tribe from winning all the best food resources. Co-operation was called for and 'moral' behaviours had to be arrived at, theither by trial and error or some creative thought process.
Humans transcend evolution because we go to great lengths to ensure that the young, the sick and the old (the typical victims in the classic predator-prey scenario) are helped to survive. Evolutionary change is what occurs when a species suffers deaths on a massive scale and only the well adapted variants survive. No pressure from the environment = no need to change. Crocodilians being an interesting example.