Yeah, and I should apologize too, I read that as Evolutionnary Psychology. I'm studying biology myself, so I'm well placed to know that Evolutionnary Biology is a great field, but we should be cautious when drawing conclusion from it: it's easy to justify almost everything with enough imagination.
Well, evolutionary psychology is no less legitimate. See above. Yeah, it's a favorite of high-schoolers and such who think they've found science to justify why men are meant to act this way and women are meant to act that way. Well, about a hundred years ago, there were people who found the theory of evolution and went "Eureka!" and created a philosophy called Social Darwinism. That's not an argument against the theory of evolution.
It also gets flak like the guy quoted just above, but, well, whenever I see criticism of it, they're either picking the worst examples of it (as if every field doesn't have crackpots) or fuming at the perceived ideological and social implications of it: they're people who reason that because it is morally right that men and women should be treated equally, therefore it must be scientifically right than men and women are psychologically the same, to name one of the most prominent examples.
It's not like a bunch of the world's most respected universities are funding bad science just for shits and giggles, after all. Read some material by serious evolutionary psychologists and let the research speak for itself. It's inevitable that biology (and evolutionary biology) will merge with psychology and it would nonsensical to try and avoid that. That's all "evolutionary psychology" means; the recognition that mind and body are one and the designation of figuring out the implications of that.
Edit: I just clicked through to that link, and well, if the guy writing the blog thinks that article exemplifies evolutionary psychology, then no wonder he hates the field so much. Fortunately for science, it doesn't. And it's an article in Slate, not a peer-reviewed study, which is obvious enough.
Edit again: Jerry Coyne's critique, also linked in the blog, does a great job of explaining what I'm getting at.