Final answer:
Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology face scrutiny for not being theoretically grounded, the political implications of their claims, and challenges in empirically supporting their hypotheses. These criticisms reflect broader debates about the roles of genetics and environment (nature versus nurture) in determining behavior.
Step-by-step explanation:
The criticism that both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology face includes issues like they are not theoretically grounded, their statements have disturbing political overtones, and skepticism that there are no data to support either of them. These criticisms stem from various factors, such as the challenge to empirically test certain hypotheses in these fields and the difficulty in isolating genetics from environmental influences in determining behavior. Sociobiology, for example, has faced criticism from prominent figures like Stephen Jay Gould for underestimating the environmental effects on behavior, and thus contributing to the ongoing 'nature versus nurture' debate.
Furthermore, while evolutionary psychology aims to understand behavioral adaptations, it can be difficult to link our current behaviors directly to past environmental conditions, thus, making some predictive claims about what behaviors are adaptive questionable. This, combined with the risk of drawing conclusions with significant political or social implications, further fuels the scrutiny both fields receive.
While both domains build on core principles from evolutionary theory, which is well-supported and widely accepted among biologists, their application to the complexities of human behavior and social organization is a point of controversy. Criticisms similar to those aimed at sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have been directed at other scientific theories, including Freud's early theories, which were criticized for being not testable and thus difficult to empirically validate.