It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles [1] living on our own planet prove that this is not so.
Maybe this is splitting hairs, but we have evidence that life can exist in such extreme condition. We have no evidence that life can arise under those conditions. I think it's perfectly plausible that it's path-dependent: life needs the friendlier conditions to first develop; once it's up and running with a means of evolving, it's able to acclimatize gradually to the extremes.
If I'm right, then it's still correct to exclude worlds that could never have had the "correct" conditions.
Thus, the habitable zone criteria is simply narrowing the search space to planets with a high(er) probability of developing and supporting life--while discarding planets with a low(er) probability (though some discarded may indeed have life). It seems reasonable to me in this light, as well.
Primitive Life on earth developed on not so friendly environment with poisonous gas (No Oxygen - Oxygen is a byproduct primitive living things created), regular meteor showers and boiling hot waters.
If Life evolved here under these conditions, it can evolve anywhere with such conditions
Low hanging fruit first.