I find it amusing that those who understand genetics and science in general the least are those that speak up the most.
epigenetics, in particular genetic imprinting (which this alludes to), are a hot area for research, and explain a lot of where nature and nurture meet up. in this case, it also brings in a bit of sociobiology, which uses game theory (and another of my favorite theories, the red queen theory) to explain why we see certain evolutionary behavior and phenomena that can't be explained otherwise...interesting stuff.
a few points:
1) scientific american is NOT a peer-reviewed journal. vis-a-vis, not a valid source for whether something has been proven or disproven. it's like citing Redbook in a budget discussion--it just has no place.
2) this makes a lot of sense from the scope of several highly plausible theories. it's testable, too. that's the awesome thing about science--no need to bitch and moan back and forth about who is right and who is wrong; go test your hypothesis, collect data, and publish--(good luck publishing, too--peer review is BRUTAL sometimes).
I'll point out that this is an area that I'm getting my Ph.D in--Genetics--and epigenetics can very quickly delve into the realm of the confusing. it gets very mechanistic-based in explanations, but once you get through the muck, it's very elegant. go look up Angelman syndrome and/or Prader-Willi syndrome. these are due to parental imprinting. Same reason why calico cats, when cloned (yes, it has been done), don't exhibit the same coloration--it isn't a carbon copy. Epigenetics. amazing stuff!