Science is no respecter of politics. Currently, there is a meme out there that conservatives are waging some war against "Science." Well, to the extent it is treated like Moloch or the Golden Calf, I can see how some push back might be in order. However, neither I nor the Pope have a big problem with evolution, properly understood, which is opposed, if at all, by sola scritura types of the Orange persuasion.
One of the "big idea" areas of science is "socio-biology;" explaining what every one does based on evolution. I thoroughly enjoyed this piece in psychology today. I suspect it is mostly hogwash however because of the one area I know something about. Its section on blonds is weak. If the advantage of blond hair and blue eyes is as great as the author states, why is it such a minority feature? It should have spread like wild-fire. For instance, the gene that allows the digestion of milk products into adulthood is of relatively modern vintage but is now possessed by most living people (those that don't have it are lactose intolerant).
It strikes me that if being blond and blue-eyed is such a huge advantage it would not (even as a recessive gene) be as uncommon as it actually is. This question can be asked of all of the socio-biological theories here present. If the key object of all male ambition is to find and mate with a barbie doll-type woman, why are there so few of that body type around? No, really, I want to know. Why so damnably few?
It may be that other traits often found with that body type are so unappealing, especially in a monogamous society of life time marriage that they make it a minority taste. See Brittany Spears, Anna Nicole Smith, Sharon Stone, Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton; Farah Fawcett, any of Hugh Hefner's "girlfriends," but see Scarlett Johannson.
I for one am willing to fund many studies with my tax-payer dollars on this subject.