I am not OP, but I guess it's a question of degree.. The reason why this is so controversial is that some people (not necessarily biologists) wanted nature to

I am not OP, but I guess it's a question of degree.. The reason why this is so controversial is that some people (not necessarily biologists) wanted nature to support the moral systems that are based on equality among people. So they didn't want the nature to have a significant effect. But the effect of the nature is significant. In this sense, this argument was lost. It's kind of natural that we want to tie our moral system to some objective, well, nature; for the sake of argument. I don't think it's generally tenable, but I do it myself in certain sense, too. People who argue with god often do it, too, by claiming there is some objective moral system that this god wants. Another example, from the opposite (liberal) camp, is claiming that being gay is unchangeable for biological reasons. We want nature to support our (I am a liberal too, in fact) moral wish that gays shouldn't be discriminated. And if it was true that being gay is unchangeable, you cannot so easily dismiss the behavior as immoral. So yeah, in that sense the nature won - it didn't let to lend itself to any ideology, however likable it might have been.