> But as we have learned over the last 30 years we dealing with a
> form of religious belief called by Dick Lewontin in another
> context,  Darwinian fundamentalism. Such beliefs are not moved by
> evidence and argument.

In my view these beliefs are less religious and more political.
Genetic determinism is both an outgrowth of and foundation for the
ideology of individualism. It is also (as the oft referenced Lewontin
has pointed out) a nifty resolution to the contradiction between the
lofty ideals of bourgeois democracy (access to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, the bit about all men being created equal, the
notion of social mobility that is supposedly unique to this system,
etc. etc.) and the reality of the grotesque inequality that pervades
our society.

On the other hand, I don't believe religion is necessarily
individualistic.  As a matter of fact, religion was a main tool for
the maintenance of feudal societies, long before notions of
individual freedom had even been developed.

Finally, the fact that these (and other pseudo-scientific) "findings"
appear in the pages of the New York Times leads me to believe that
they serve a primarily political, rather than religious, purpose.