These guys are arguing that dualistic thought patterns aren't irrational, rather they are an overextension of the mental mechanisms that make rationality possible. (which, again, isn't new to feminists and Freudians).
Now, the funny thing about it is this: if it's true that we are born with the ability to distinguish between animate and inanimate objects and if my memory isn't failing me, than the studies about babies' sharing a common perception of beauty are horseshit. IIRC, those babies looked at photographs. So, when they goo'd and gah'd about all that, it wasn't about humans. Again, I have no idea about the details because i just read the gloss on the blog and vaguely remember details of the research on evopsych and beauty, it's just tickling to think about the possibility that something like this might shoot a hole in that research. :)
http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/01/05/god-is-a-spandrel/
While the blog write up for this was really annoying, it's still worth taking a look at. It's annoying because the blog author claims that there are two main approaches for explaining why people the world over and throughout history have formed religious belief systems: the alienation or 'opiate of the masses' view or the functionalist view that religion provides certain goods to individuals. I complain about the latter take since, while this gloss is meant to address Durkheim, Mauss, Mary Dougles, and others the problem is that the author doesn't acknowledge that they were already talking about the centrality of dualistic thinking to human society. Freudians and feminists have drawn on this work, asking how those dualistic thought patterns emerge from the micro-level of social interaction during infancy.
(E.g., the stuff about co-sleeping is often founded on the notion that we help shape healthier personality structures when we don't repeatedly make young children suffer sepration anxiety during the first 6 months.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org