National Academy of Sciences (One of the highest honors than at scientist can achieve) and was awarded the 2010 Templeton Prize. (He is giving the $1.5 million prize money to UCI's science library.)
He has some recent papers discussing the evolution of morality among humans and I would like to focus on one point: the parallel he draws with the evolution of language:
One needs to distinguish the capacity to have morality/language with the actual system of morality/language one uses. He argues the ability to speak languages is something that has resulted from biological evolution. All humans have the capacity to communicate using some language or another. However, exactly what language one happens to speak is not a result of biological evolution but a result of cultural evolution.
He claims the story is exactly the same for morality. Biological evolution gave humans the capacity to have a system of morality. Three things evolved biologically that gave rise to this capacity: "(a) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (b) the ability to make value judgments; and (c) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action."
However, the exact moral code each person follows using that capacity is derived from cultural evolution: "Moral norms are products of cultural evolution, not of biological evolution." It is analogous to the statement: I can speak because of my biological makeup but I choose to speak English over Chinese mostly do to the culture I was raised in.