Evolutionary psychology has been controversial since its rise in the 1990s, with critics and supporters debating its merits as a science. While critics (e.g. David Buller, Elizabeth Lloyd) have widely criticized the foundations of evolutionary psychology, few philosophers or scientists have questioned them. Given the growing influence of evolutionary behavioral sciences within mainstream science such as psychology and anthropology, it is important to analyze the criticisms and see whether the arguments against evolutionary psychology have merit. This article will focus on two of the most often cited criticisms of evolutionary psychology: the critique of the concept of a modular model of the mind and the critique of the two “signature achievements” of evolutionary psychology, the Cinderella effect of Martin Daly and Margot Wilson and the studies by David Buss on male-female differences in jealousy. I will describe and respond to these criticisms of evolutionary psychology, arguing that these criticisms are invalid and have little merit on the scientific basis of evolutionary psychology. A modular mind? Many of the most prominent critics of evolutionary psychology (Buller and Kaplan) are deeply skeptical of the two fundamental tenets of evolutionary psychology. The first principle states that the human mind is “massively modular,” composed of myriad independent, special-purpose (“domain-specific”) modules, each of which evolved to help our ancestors survive and reproduce throughout the hunter-gatherer period of human evolution. The second principle focuses on the idea that subsequent cognitive adaptations to new environments have not occurred (Machery 2007; Rellihan 2012). According to the eminent critic David Buller (2005), evolutionary psychologists think that humans are to the left…middle of the paper…criterion that true science is progressive. It has been shown to be able to successfully explain apparent anomalies and generate new predictions and explanations and thus has the hallmarks of a currently progressive research program capable of providing us with new insights into how the mind works (Ketellar and Ellis 2000). A look at the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (2005), edited by David Buss, shows how vigorous and productive this field is. However, important challenges remain in the discipline. The most important are determining the role of domain-specific versus domain-general processes and integrating evolutionary psychology with other behavioral sciences such as genetics, neuroscience, and psychometrics (Buss 2004; Rice 2011). Although critics will remain, evolutionary psychology will remain a scientific discipline for the foreseeable future.