Should history be interpreted politically, theologically, or biologically?

Is it lack of knowledge or lack of courage that causes historians to interpret history politically rather than theologically or biologically? Now days if a historian interprets history biologically he will be called a racist or bigot and drummed out of history departments, which suggests a lack of courage that is almost, but not quite justified, especially if there is a family to feed.

I don't know if history departments will one day be subsumed by the science of sociobiology---after postmodernism is seen as a Machiavellian fraud---but I do think sociobiology will one day be one of the main academic tools in history departments.

Should history be interpreted politically, theologically, or biologically? I think history should be interpreted biologically but with a biology that includes theology, call it theobiology. Politics follows after those forces. Why? Because the essential drives of human history are biological and evolutionary as life seeks survival and reproductive success, which develops our cultures, and the ultimate or zenith of success is materially evolving to supermaterial Godhood, the essential evolutionary goal of life and history.