Somebody: Doug, this sound disturbingly like the average know-nothing American who says things like "hey, you have one study that says a low fat, low meat diet is good for you, and another that a high meat, high fat diet is better for losing weight, so I guess there's no way of knowing which is true." What this confuses is a lack of complete knowledge with the inability to ever draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence currently at hand.
If you believe we don't have enough information about the innate influences at work in the development of human morality, then that's essentially an argument in favor of continuing to develop that research program - *not* closing off the discussion. But it's the latter option that so many seem to be in favor of, purely for reasons of ideological convenience.
In essence, the strong opponents of evolutionary psychology, the ones who don't simply reject the field as it's currently constructed under the capitalist regime but oppose the very premise behind it, seem to argue in favor of an Adam and Eve version of human development. It's a view of human evolution where Homo sapiens, at some point miraculously lost the baggage of innate tendencies, reflexes, and hormonal responses that every other animal species carries. How this happened I cannot fathom, but I imagine it could well have involved a virgin conception.