You can read the entire article at American Vision.

Modern atheists recognize a problem in their worldview. That is, it leads to complete chaos when lived out consistently since, to them,there is no such thing as objectively morality. Murder is no longer immoral but simply the strong surviving over the weak. Rape is no longer immoral but simply the action of a man promoting his genotyope more than others. Atheists recognize this (see Dan Barker v. Dr. Doug Wilson debate). So they are trying to explain objective morality naturally. Dan Barker has mentioned this in his debates many times. That is why I found Sam Harris' pursuit so interesting. Here is an excerpt from Joel McDurmon's article,

The description from TED's website summarizes the talk: "Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can — and should — be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life." This is an accurate description. Sam is reacting to the common argument that you cannot derive moral values for nature simply from nature itself: in other words, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." Whatever is, is. Period. This can say nothing about how whatever is ought to be. Sam disagrees. He argues that values reduce to simple material facts—facts about different human experiences and consciousness—and that these experiences can be observed and measured objectively by studying the brain.

What he's trying to say, while concealing it with fancy language, is that moral values reduce to brain states of pleasure and pain. Of course, this leads to relativism—what makes one man happy won't another—and Sam is after objective moral values. But he's able to distract his followers from this problem with lots of appeals to extreme examples of religious "morality" like the forced veiling of women and suicide bombers. He further burkas his fallacy with lots of references to science.