What I think, quite frankly, is that evo psych, although a developing science, is science. And, as such, it will live or die by the maxims of science. If a theory is proposed and the data supports it, it will take hold. If a theory is not supported by the data, it will be discarded. The validity will be based on the quality of the data and the analysis of it. Right now, there is a lot of very warranted criticism about the scientific aspects of evo psych, and a lot of lively debate.
There are quite a few people who question the validity of evo psych for reasons that have little to do with the science, and much to do with their own personal feelings. For example, there’s a lot of data that supports a theory that female orgasm is an evolutionary byproduct that has not been selected for that what has been selected for is male orgasm, and since the male and female reproductive organs arise from the same tissues, female orgasm, for some women, is just a lucky physiological result. There are many people who criticize this theory not because of the science that supports it or does not support it, but because they believe it “devalues” women or “elevates” the importance of male orgasm.
Frankly, there’s no difference between the thought process involved here and that of a creationist who refuses to accept evolution because he feels it contradicts the Bible.
There is a lot of very justified criticism of many of evo-psych’s ideas (there’s a lot of nonsense in the linked article, for sure.) But we have to be careful not to fall into a trap of trying to make science fit an ideology- any ideology.