>The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to go to war doesn't me

>The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to go to war doesn't mean that not wanting them to go to war is rejecting the theory of evolution. There is definitely a bias in academia against explaining why the world is the way it is in biological terms. Look at what happened to Larry Summers. Watch the Norwegian documentary Hjernevask (Brainwash) (it's on the net with English subtitles). The psychologist Robert Plomin said this in an interview: >‘My very first conference was by this old guy Leon Kamin, the author of a book called The Science and Politics of IQ,’ says Plomin. ‘Kamin came back to academia just so as to stop this pernicious stuff about genetics entering psychology. >...Then he started saying: “We’ve got to stop this talk of genetics now!” And I realised it didn’t matter to Kamin what was true. He believed in what he called “science for the people”, which was what he thought it would be useful for the people to know. I mean, that killed me because it was Kamin and these elite Harvard professors deciding what’s for the people! The idea was that science should serve politics. http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intell... Suggesting that violence may have a biological basis is a taboo for many people. For example, consider this commentary on a recent study on Chimpanzee violence. The popular explanation has been that the reason they do it is because of human interference, not biology: >Prof Frans de Waal, an animal behaviour expert from Emory University in the US, said the new study was an important contribution. >"I'm very glad they're publishing this," he told BBC News. It answers a "long, long history of resistance", Prof de Waal explained, to the idea of natural, inter-community violence in chimpanzees. >"It has always been contentious - we've had meetings where people screamed at each other. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276 If those on the left are fine with accepting evolution, then why would the biological explanation have a long history of resistance? Why would it be contentious? Plenty on the left do deny/ignore evolution when it comes to topics in human society.