Driving on the right side of the road is a convention. It was arbitrarily chosen to facilitate the flow of traffic. That is the truth of the matter.
It is neither good, nor bad. The determination of good and bad can only be made in reference to a moral code. Moral codes protect rights. The only thing that can be said about the convention as far as to describe it, is that it was chosen and the details are what they are. It is good, because it facilitates the flow of traffic and thus protects the rights of the citizens to travel without jeopardizing their property and lives to the chaos that would ensue if folks drove wherever they pleased.
"‘Are Right and Wrong Wired Into Our Brains?’ The article’s author details the work of postdoctoral researcher, Joshua Greene, who has been studying the biochemical reactions within people’s brains when they are faced with moral decisions."
Right and wrong are not hardwired. The brain is a machine that provides for the function of sentience and rational thought. The machine is fully capable of being used in a purely rational fashion, or irrational fashion according to the logic employed by the idividual. Greene is simply pointing at processes that he doesn't even know the function of, let alone understand.
"Greene hypothesizes that our moral judgments are not based solely upon reason alone but also upon emotion."
Moral judgements are rationally based on a moral code of rational construction. Emotionally based, or motivatied thought, or action is neither rational, or moral.
"In the beginning, a holy and immutable (unchanging) God created human beings with a sense of right and wrong built into their very being. This sense of right and wrong is known as God’s moral law."
There is no sense of right and wrong. There is only free will and rational capacity, both in the image and likeness of Gods. Morality requires a rationally constructed moral code to use as a reference.
"Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God."
No. The moral code was a creation of a rational mind that serves the purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. Good and evil are objective judgements only when they conform to the moral code which protects rights. The first of those rights is the life and sovereignty of will of each individual. The first persons rights to be protected are God's. They were to be protected against infringement by His creation. Note that those individuals created were given the gift of life and sovereignty of will as an act of unconditional love. That is God's grace. His creation is not His property, nor was it ever.
"There can be no such universal principles as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an evolutionary system as there is no higher authority for such principles than man himself—who is no more valuable than his own opinion would deem him to be."
There sure can be! God came up with the concept of rights and the moral code htat protects them, so can man, because he was made in the image and likeness of God. The principles are universal, because they protect the essence of the sentient rational beings which live. it doesn't matter which sentient being comes up with the truth about what is required to protect the existence of the essence of those beings. What does matter is the logic and perfection of the code's protection of of the life and essence of those beings.
"Good and evil cannot possibly exist within a world that defines everything by chance."
Zimmer understands neither science, or random variables. THe world does not work by chance. It operates by the physics.
"In his evolutionary belief system, only (fallible) human preference can determine ideals of right and wrong, and such preferences may shift from society to society."
The requirement of rationality is that all things be examined in an open and scientific way and that the truth of all matters be known and understood. To that end, honesty, truthfulness and a constant vigil with an open mind apply. Fallibilty only becomes an issue when one fails to examine and make certain of the truth. Like when one stamps a vote as doctrine and maintains it as truth in the face of reality which contradicts it.
" the ghastly implications of evolutionary philosophy."
The evidence contained in reality says that evolution happened and is not a hypothesis.
Are all your choices and decisions based solely on logic/reason?
If Osama Bin Laden walked into your living room today and decided to torture and decapitate you, would that be wrong?