by Patrick Appel

Jesse Bering defends his article against the onslaught:

Strange, is it not, that such grievous concerns about the science of evolutionary psychologyin particular, whether its central hypotheses are falsifiable, whether reporters should be so enthusiastic in reporting its results, and whether its methods are adequateseem to appear at some times but not others? Where were these same outraged critics, I wonder, when I wrote enthusiastically about the evolutionary psychology of humor, blushing, athletics, male body odor, suicide, and cannibalism?

Yet whenever the issue at hand relates to female sexualitywhether it's the prevention of rape or the evolution of female orgasm, the field's most outspoken opponents turn up in droves. We do need to clear up a few misunderstandings about the science. But I would like to know what we are really, truly, talking about here. Is this a debate over quality control in a particular academic field or a battle over politics and ideology? I wish I could believe it were only about the science. When the skeptics chime in, I suspect they are egged on by politicized reactants.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.