A macro-evolutionary perspective in psychology, the idea that broad, species-wide psychological traits can be explained as direct products of Darwinian natural selection acting on “psychological modules” over deep evolutionary time, carries significant dangers when it is embraced without rigorous empirical support, because it can lead researchers to construct just-so stories that reflect cultural biases rather than testable scientific hypotheses; prominent scholars such as Stephen Jay Gould (1978, 1997) and Massimo Pigliucci (2010) have explicitly warned that simplistic evolutionary narratives in psychology risk unfalsifiability, confirmation bias, and the reification of speculative adaptationist claims that lack reliable data. Gould and Richard Lewontin’s seminal critique of adaptationism emphasised the hazards of inferring function without rigorous evidence (1979), and later critics like Dermot Lynott & Keith J. Holyoak (2014) stressed that many “evolutionary psychology” explanations rest on weak empirical foundations and ignore cultural and developmental dynamics, leading the field away from robust, mechanistic science. Embracing macro-evolutionist explanations in psychology without credible, interdisciplinary support thus risks undermining the authority of psychological science by privileging narrative plausibility over empirical rigor. Christian psychology asserts the role of God as Creator of all and completely rejects notions of macro-evolution (the idea of one species becoming another) given that these are not supported by any credible scientific evidence. In contrast, micro-evolution, the capacity of species to adjust and adapt to their environment, has been well documented and is amply supported by empirical observation.