To note and measure cooperative tendencies is science. Real science. To then add marketing for evolution is not science, it is boosterism, or more likely -- evanglism for Darwinism.
What marketing for Darwinism? The article starts with the observation of cooperation being inborn in humans and then surmises that it may have evolved. The actual evidence for evolutionary theory has nothing to do with this.
Also, do you view all scientific evidence as "marketing?"