It’s always nice to know someone else agrees with you. I’ve written about Evolutionary Psychology before (spoiler alert: its assumptions stink), but thanks to PZ Myers I know many of the same points have been made by an actual psychologist.

While empirical “findings” are made within the field, many of them only make sense if one accepts the assumptions of evolutionary psychology’s definition of the human mind. Criticisms and alternative explanations have been offered for some of evolutionary psychology’s most cherished findings… . Evolutionary psychologists often respond to their critics by suggesting that they misunderstand their field and that they ought to read the foundational texts of their discipline and the enormity of its research findings. However, this suggestion would appear to be nothing more than theoretical bible-thumping. They want their research to somehow stand on its own—hoping that their critics will excuse or overlook the theoretical assumptions that were made in order for them to conduct it. Evolutionary psychologists appear to be living in the Land of Oz—implicitly suggesting that when our genetic sciences mature, we will someday look behind the Wizard’s curtain to find DNA proof supporting their modular hypotheses. However, there is reason to suspect that we will uncover what we should have always guessed …it was not nature that selected these modules, but humans who put them there, crafting stories that were so good, they would even fool themselves of the truth.

Peters, Brad M. “Evolutionary psychology: Neglecting neurobiology in defining the mind.” Theory & Psychology 23.3 (2013): 305-322.