Ah ok, the fact/value thing respun recently as the is/ought thing. Pinker of course constructs a complex strawman of behaviourists and so on to prop up his spin on Chomskian nativism (or whatever of the available terms you use) or language organ stuff. As I pointed out last year (or was that further back?) the kindest treatment of this comes from Jerry Fodor in the LRB. Its a worthy read that I highly recommend.
So you are indulging in quite a bit of hand-waving, no? On the one hand you have legitimate biologists/scientists like Lewontin and Rose presenting an argument against EP, reductionism, Sociobiology etc. In places, IIRC (but can find exact references if necessary), they go to some length to mention and (attempt to) demonstrate that their argument is a scientific one. You also have Sober and Wilson providing models and empirical examples in favour of more extensive (and explanatory) models of selection. We also have Phillip Kitcher's review of the entire business in "Vaulting Ambition" (blurbed by none other than Maynard Smith). Then there are controversies surrounding ethology vs behavioural/comparative psychology, and the devastating critiques of Tinbergen's inheritors, well documented in Patrick Bateson's "Taking the stink out of instinct".
On the other hand we have your claims that leftists have their heads in their asses, etc. So why not go ahead and tell us what line you have read and how your knowledge of empirical research actually substantiates your claim?
BTW, at the risk of resurrecting the ghost of Singers past, the man (Singer) published an interesting book recently regarding how the left can reclaim Darwin. A better guide, I would argue, for leftists, than an American Enterprise Institute speaker (Pinker) and Summers apologist.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/