Biology is tricky and evolutionary biology even trickier - in the modern age, with insights into epigenetics, that trickiness and general complexity means virtually any stance you want to adopt on any issue can claim to be 'biological' if you just say something pithy like 'It's a combination of nature and nurture', which is the biology equivalent of amateur political scientists who say 'If only people would talk to each other we could all get along' about foreign relations.
Sex, though, has been studied in-depth only much more recently, to somewhat speculative effect, and I have often wondered why biologists are so tolerant of gobbledygook invoking biology. If they critique any field with the name 'evolution' in it, are they worried young earth creationists win? It seems a little paranoid but biologists are not wrong for worrying. As a layperson, I regard evolution as a lot stronger than isolated attempts to 'teach the controversy' but I certainly understand that people in the culture war have to jump on every instance, lest it be that pesky domino effect in foreign relations.
My general belief is that if you want to promote science over silliness, humor is better than being reactionary. There's no better example of that than Jeremy Yoder's sly, somewhat Socratic dialogue at Denim and Tweed. It covers how an evolutionary psychologist and a biologist approach something common from different perspectives but highlights the big difference between them - biologists want to understand the world according to natural laws and evolutionary psychologists tend to want to use biology as a shield for pop culture theories.
Basically, they know just enough biology to be wrong. Here is a snippet but go read it and encourage terrific writing like this.
Sex, though, has been studied in-depth only much more recently, to somewhat speculative effect, and I have often wondered why biologists are so tolerant of gobbledygook invoking biology. If they critique any field with the name 'evolution' in it, are they worried young earth creationists win? It seems a little paranoid but biologists are not wrong for worrying. As a layperson, I regard evolution as a lot stronger than isolated attempts to 'teach the controversy' but I certainly understand that people in the culture war have to jump on every instance, lest it be that pesky domino effect in foreign relations.
My general belief is that if you want to promote science over silliness, humor is better than being reactionary. There's no better example of that than Jeremy Yoder's sly, somewhat Socratic dialogue at Denim and Tweed. It covers how an evolutionary psychologist and a biologist approach something common from different perspectives but highlights the big difference between them - biologists want to understand the world according to natural laws and evolutionary psychologists tend to want to use biology as a shield for pop culture theories.
Basically, they know just enough biology to be wrong. Here is a snippet but go read it and encourage terrific writing like this.
"I suspect," said the Biologist, "that you attribute greater efficiency to Natural Selection than this evolutionary force truly possesses, my dear colleague. But even if drunken collegiate hook-ups were a viable avenue for procreation, you must concede that there would needs be some genetic basis for the tendency to reproduce in this fashion, if Natural Selection is to act upon it. Do you truly believe this to be the case?"
"What a peculiar question!" exclaimed the Evolutionary Psychologist. "I thought that you Biologists were well aware that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is quite safe to assume that any and all aspects of human nature have a heritable genetic basis. Would you truly require the demonstration of heritability in order to conclude that an observed trait or behavior is adapted by Natural Selection?"
One of my favorite sections: