I was most struck by the line that "It easily becomes an interpretive blank check, permitting speculation that seems to explain any describable human trait." T

I was most struck by the line that "It easily becomes an interpretive blank check, permitting speculation that seems to explain any describable human trait." This has long been a criticism "real" evolutionary scientists (like geneticists) have leveled against the speculative nonsense often seen coming from sociobiology/evolutionary psychology [0]. Science works to find scientific conclusions. But the trappings of science are sometimes applied in ways that have little to do with actual science. [0] http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/120917crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/09/17/12091... -- note that sociobio/ev psych can produce real science. In my experience, though, most of what they produce is "just-so stories", as Gould's comment points out.