My interest was in figuring out the correct theory (to the extent we can), not in cataloguing all the misuses of science. The latter is quite a large topic.
The history of science makes clear that some theories receive attention and support beyond what the evidence would warrant, because they serve some other goal. A theory may jibe with a preconceived religious dogma (as in the Catholic Church’s embrace of geocentrism and consequent suppression of Galileo’s work). A theory may provide a justification for exploitation (as in pseudoscientific arguments about the innate inferiority of blacks, which were embraced by those defending slavery or, later, racially segregated schools). These sorry episodes represent the abuse of science. Scientific theories should be evaluated on the evidence, not accepted for other reasons.
Does such abuse go on today? Of course it does. I gave the example of an argument purportedly from evolutionary psychology being used to contend that no woman should ever be President. I expressed my disagreement. Yes, I could have said a great deal more about that aspect of the topic, but that would have made my post even more verbose, exacerbating redqueen’s displeasure. 
More important is that the politicization of science isn’t relevant to my criticism of the OP. The issue is whether we need to stop using evolution as an explanation for gender differences. To the extent that the theory of evolution offers any valid explanation of human behavior as well as human physiology, that validity doesn’t vanish just because some people improperly seize on the vocabulary of evolution when they want to give a scientific veneer to their agenda.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
