Cultural bias may generate error in science, with adverse effects beyond science.
As a flawed doctrine, biological determinism also has significant political overtones, not justified by science. Characterizing society as "merely" biological implies that any social organization — disparity in wealth, for example — is inherent in nature and cannot be changed. The appeal to nature obscures how human interaction, or politics — at the social level — contributes to the outcome. Biological determinist claims function socially to preserve the status quo: to protect power and acquired wealth, and to peripheralize moral analysis. Further, the appeal to science and its authority implies that the view is proven and cannot be challenged, further concealing the role of human politics.
Biological determinism ultimately tries to present certain values as based on facts of nature. Accordingly, it also reflects another error, the naturalistic fallacy: the effort to find or extract values from the facts of nature. This error has a long history, going back at least to Herbert Spencer in the late 1800s. He claimed that laissez-faire social ideology was based on his biologized psychology and sociology and on Darwinian evolution (Spencer 1851, 1852a, 1852b, 1864; Moore 1903). The same error is found today when someone argues that some value or moral principle is justified because a certain trait is (so they claim) universal, or innate, or reflects "human nature." But frequency does not establish value. Such appeals typically indicate that the scientist is trying to inscribe his or her own cultural prejudice into the "facts" of nature: a threat to sound science called the naturalizing error (Allchin 2008). Facts of nature may surely inform moral reasoning and justification. But nature does not yield values on its own.
Download supplemental essay:
"Social UnDarwinism".