If you agree with the rest of the article, but dislike the evo-psych part, you can probably find a more polite way to phrase that. If you disagree with the rest of the article as well, you should be counter-arguing the rest of the article on its own merits, rather than zeroing out the one weakest point and disregarding every other point the author made.

What if they have no opinion either way about the rest of the article?

If I pointed out a typo without commenting about the rest of the article, you wouldn't tell me that my comment seems to say that I think this entitles me to completely disregard the rest of the article, would you? If you wouldn't, which nits can be picked on their own and which can't?