Evolutionary psychology is often used as a crutch for preconception, so there may be some validity to the dislike. There is legitimate science, and then there is conjecture and non-sequiturs. The former you will find in publications dealing with science, the latter in ideological blogs and their literary kin. Too often, in non-scientific discussion, it boils down to "evolution did it, hence it is ultimate truth". The two traps I have encountered are "ascribing inherent value", which has been mentioned, and "ascribing purpose".
The current trend is adaptationist, mimicking biology, hence certain basic assumptions are required for the idea to work. However, we know little about how the mind actually works, or even what it really is (in empirically demonstrable terms). Less so even than we understand biology (we can break down mechanisms, but essence and the greater picture both remain elusive). That leaps of logic occur in these fields is valid criticism. The Gaia hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
) is a good example of such errors.
Amongst ideologues, attraction develops to hypotheses that do not conflict with their view of reality. The reverse effect can be observed (historically and currently) in the left, but I would attribute this to ignorance rather than some inherent opposition in modern times. People like Peter Singer (author of "A Darwinian Left") have a good approach. Taking the truth humanity learns and reaching one of many conclusions from it without regarding it as absolute. Such plasticity does not lend itself to philosophical discussion unless you want to argue a series of "What ifs".
Anyway, this article was extremey funny and argued that feminists are physically ugly and that they want to increase their perceived attractiveness by getting men to think that being attracted to slim, beautiful women is simply social engineering and not programmed in their genes.
A denial of the truth because of the well it springs from, essentially (joke or not). Modern men are indeed conditioned towards unrealistic expectations, and women are conditioned into bending to them. That element exists, we gain from acknowledging it. Taking it to an extreme and applying it for the furtherance of an ideology of universal equivalence is where the breakdown occurs. I was going to say it's ironic, but it's actually quite fitting.