Yes, this is a contemporary conception of moral goodness. It involved moral psychology and evolutionary psychology. This is naturalistic conception of 'good'.
But moral philosophy is interested in more than just this. We're interested in the language as well. For example, what do we mean when we say, 'This is a good knife'? A theory of biological goodness isn't rich enough to encapsulate this utterance.
It might, however, be able to explain what 'This is a good person', or 'This act is good', but it falls short in explaining what 'He is good farmer', or 'She is a good engineer' mean.
Furthermore, we're interested in the relationship between value and action. What's the relationship, say, between 'biologically good' and 'we ought to do what is biologically good'. This isn't as clear as the older theories.
But I wouldn't demerit it straight away. A scientific conception of goodness is relatively new.
Thanks for sharing.