The "social sciences" are about as scientific as Ptolemaic astronomy and Galen medicine once were

LINK to Guardian article by Polly Toynbee, in which she speaks out for the social sciences.

Polly Toynbee's "social sciences" are about as scientific as Ptolemaic astronomy and Galen medicine once were, and will remain so until placed on a firm, human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, foundation.

What are the reasons for such stubborn resistance amongst social scientists for this, for the survival of our civilization, so urgently needed development?

They are pretty much the same reasons why Ptolemaic astronomers and Galenic physicians resisted the new astronomy and the new medicine, an understanding of which requires the same human-evolutionary approach they refuse to continence.