Biology has a replication crisis almost as bad as psychology. I agree with a lot of these criticisms but I wonder why we don't see articles questioning if biology is a science. Perhaps there was a period in the past where biology was more rigorous, whereas psych has always been really handwavy?

There's not a lot of real predicting in bio research IME (granted only with a couple subfields). A bunch of things are tried and then whatever works is the focus of the publication, with a write up implying there was a clear hypothesis from the start. Of course not all bio labs are like this, but I'd argue not all psych labs are either.

A lot of this is bad incentives and poor training, but human research is especially hard to control. So I think the issue is partially inherent to the field (in both psych and to some extent bio).