It can be if its used incorrectly. This is why they said
reviewers needed to hold studies to a minimal standard of biological plausibility
There's two "good" ways to do this (as far as I can see). 1) Come up with a biologically plausible idea and test it, using statistics to look at results. 2) Find a pattern in the statistics and find a biologically plausible explanation.
The biology alone isn't enough, you need to statistics to back up and show actual results. However, using statistics alone and in the way indicated in the article (looking at every test and every subgroup, etc...) is exactly what your saying: avoiding rigorous thinking in favor of getting a result.
