: The problem is: whoever 'proves' that biology is destiny will then have the platform to DEFINE what 'destiny' is.
: And that's the reactionary element in this ideological struggle: if biology is indeed destiny, then according to the ruling class destiny is lower pay and less skilled work for women, blacks, those unable to afford secondary education, etc., etc. Destiny becomes CAPITALISM itself (no sense trying to change nature). And that is something everyone on the left needs to combat as if our lives depend on it---because our lives really DO depend on it.
: * 'Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and Iíll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select---doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors' (Watson, Behaviorism, W.W. Norton & Co. 1925, p. 82).
Your overblowing this thing.
Remember the 'proof' that lefties offered us that homosexuality was inbred? A lot of it was based on Kinsey's work, 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male', in which he claimed that 10% of the population was homosexual. Turns out that Kinsey was a sexual charlatain and that he created the 10% figure for his own benefit (check out the New Yorker, August 25 & September 1, 1997, Dr. Yes).
This may be some of the same. Time will tell.
Would you consider a person's conscience as part and parcel of human nature?