Furthermore, if morality is based on religion then it has negative meaning because such morality is based on fair of eternal punishment.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It says to me, “We’re horrible, but it doesn’t matter.” Fine. So I’m intrinsically depraved, but I’m absolutely forgiven. So what?

The catch is, of course, god’s law. There are only two options: Either this god communicates its law to me directly, in which case my own moral intuition can be taken as authoritative.

In this case, everyone is entitled to call himself a just as good a Christian as anyone else: you, me, my uncle Fred, Gandhi, Hitler, bin Laden, Calley, Eichmann, Bojaxhiu, Schweitzer, and Darwin. It doesn’t draw any sort of meaningful distinction.

Alternatively, this law might be communicated indirectly, via scripture, prophets and/or priests. But if you have privileged some external source as authoritative, then you have just established a religion.

If you want to learn more about evolution, there are any number of good books on the subject, aimed at a lay audience. A search for evolution on Amazon will give a number of books with a diversity of views. Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene is especially good.

Charles Darwin’s seminal works, including The Origin of Species are available online and are quite accessible, if you can get past his Victorian style.

Both.

Without faith that there is a higher power to rectify the imbalance when laws fail to protect those they are designed to protect, what reason would there be to follow the laws or accept that the judgement sometimes fails?

Why do I have to be certain of perfect justice to follow laws? The need to fantasize the certainty of some perfect justice (which always mirabile dictu! conforms precisely to each individual believer’s prejudices and preferences) says volumes about the believer and nothing at all about the world.

If morals are learned, there has to be some reason, some hope that causes there to be a reward for following those moral values. Accepting imperfection and going on with our lives has to be profitable.

The writer needs to learn about probabilistic game theory. Even given imperfection, I can rationally conclude that overall, conforming to an imperfect law is profitable.

And if they are genetic, who designed the genetic code.

No one. It evolved.

Random selection does not seem to answer all the questions either.

Indeed. ‘Tis a good thing, then, that evolution has nothing at all to do with “random selection”. The writer here does nothing but expose his or her own scientific ignorance.