Not really. The biologist can most of the time put their object of study under the microscope. And with genetics it can perhaps even be argued the biology is becoming more of a hard science than geology and physics. Few sciences have the history of their object of study written down in code for all to read. Compare that to cosmology for example. (ok… ok… not too unlike, for cosmology we have light from distant sources, and in geology we have a strata of rocks, but for biology the genetic code is in addition to the fossil record)
I do not disagree with that. I can see how it can be a trap. But just because there are traps doesn’t mean a forest should not be explored or that there is nothing of value to be found there. So I while I agree that evolutionary psychology should not replace psychology, I disagree with the claim that evolutionary psychology is not a worthwhile field of study.
The difference is the accumulation of evidence. No change of theory can make the evidence go away. So the first test of general relativity was to see if it reproduced Newtonian physics in the regime where Newtonian physics was working. Only then can we see if it also correctly predicts those things where Newtonian physics was getting it wrong.
But a science where the evidence is scarce, hard to connect with conclusions, or blurred by the blunt tool of statistics, there is no accumulation of evidence to give it any hard ground for its conclusions. Thus the newest paradigm easily rules the science. AND YES, the appeal to biology and evolution can indeed be considered such a paradigm. But I would agree with you in so far as hoping that the stumbling efforts to explore doesn’t end there.
Naturalism is the work of science – science is all about looking for the laws of nature which explains things. Accusing any science of “ideological naturalism” just looks like an excuse to employ “ideological religionism,” which leaves any legitimate claim to science in ashes.
From encyclopedia Britannica
Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural.
This makes it clear that naturalism is all about reducing philosophy to an extension of science but to accuse science itself of excessive naturalism is a nonsensical absurdity.