The Guardian has an interesting interview with Harvard Evolutionary Psychologist Steven Pinker:

You either love Pinker or you hate him. Indifference does not appear to be an option. He's either the welcome breath of fresh air who has blown away the old guard of behaviourist science in favour of an evolutionary, genetic approach to human development and language, or he's some kind of borderline-eugenicist, neo-Darwinian. There's little in-between.

I guess I'm one of the few in between: any science of psychology that doesn't take into account genetics and evolution is like chemistry without quantum mechanics, blindly ignoring some of the most important recent scientific developments. As Pinker says:

What I was trying to point out was that you can't understand how we learn unless you identify the learning mechanisms. And these have some genetic basis. We are not the same as cats, so it follows we must have some innate circuitry that allows us to talk and to be self-aware. All our behaviours are a result of neurophysiological activity in the brain. There is no reason to believe there is any magic going on. With its 100 billion neurons, the brain is highly complex and unpredictable; so what might look like freewill from the outside and what might feel like freewill from the inside is not some mysterious violation of the laws of physics.

On the other hand, evolutionary psychology is hard to practice at a non-speculative level - it's difficult to come up with good testable predictions, and it is even more difficult to test those predictions with real human subjects. Nevertheless, Pinker's books are always thought-provoking.