I read the link, and I think it's fair to say that evo-psych shouldn't be dismissed as "just-so". However, much of what I've read about evo-psych in pop science clearly is "just-so".
I recall one claim (in psychology today or something like that) that women in Scandinavia developed blond hair because it was a way to attract attention in spite of the thick clothing that would be required in cold weather... makes sense, right? In a just so way, sure. However, I haven't been reading scientific journals. For all I know, this claim was scientifically tested and validated.
So some of the "just-so" accusations may be the result of how evo-psych is presented in the mainstream media. A journalist may present solid science as a "just-so" narrative, because it makes for a more entertaining story, leaving out all the boring parts.
Yeah, lots of the popular criticism is of low quality. I don't really know if there is any high quality criticism of evolutionary psychology.
I have read up a bit on the subject, but the really interesting thing for me is the question: "why is the attacks both so ferocious and dishonest?".
Evolutionary psychology breaks some ideological basis for marxism and for religion. After seeing a few similar debates in other areas, one of my few certain opinions is:
idealists lie.
I've seen some other theory about blonde hair. :-) It is probably some sexual selection (if there were something with snow reflection or heating, it ought to be known by now.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_controv...
(You'll find some bad papers/books in all subjects, of course).
Edit: It is really cool when you give a 'pedia-link that explains a misconception and gets downvoted. :-)