Just to be clear about it, I love the way this discussion exposes differences in type. I totally do follow what everyone is saying and why they're saying it...
I just know that, despite intellectually agreeing with you on the variations of pragmatic reasoning here, it just doesn't "work" for me. The core essence just demands my utmost fealty.
I know the biological aspects are true, they DO make us function certain ways.
Meanwhile, I don't know if anything is layered over top (whether it's God, or human will, or what) -- hence that part is ambiguous.
So I have no choice (for me), but to see biology as definite and God or whatever else as indefinite, and thus I cannot read more into the biology than warranted even if I see possible patterns. I can only acknowledge them as possibilities, and NOT live by them as if they were utmost truth.
It doesn't matter what I want something to be.
It just matters what it is / can be shown to be.
And the definition of something's essence has to be precise -- not less than it is, not more than it is. Ambiguity has to be acknowledged and lived by until knowledge is gained, or I suffer a slow erosion.