The problem, of course, is that X can be linked to Y, Z, and Theta. Nobody knows for sure. But you can use general theories and general statements to connect the dots to make a pretty picture. It's speculative.
It was a good, entertaining read. I liked it. I would just caution to take it as it was meant: fun.
The fact that wolves hunt in packs and that falcons hunt alone is probably not due to different styles of elementary schooling. It's probably due to evolutionary forces, and studying such things in an appropriate manner is scientific, even if it's in political defiance of your own (and my own) elementary schooling.
There's a lot of probabalies in there. I could see where different conclusions could be made with the same observations.
"Psedo-science" has gotten a really bad name lately. It just means talk with the air of science. It doesn't imply falsehood or defectiveness in any way. SETI, for instance, is full of a lot of pseudo-science, simply because there are so many unknowns we take what science we have and creatively speculate what might be. In that way, pseudo-science is abduction -- the formulation of possible rules around a given set of data -- a critical part of the scientific process.
The danger with evolutionary explanations to everything is that we lose track of just what it is that we're talking about. For instance, in the conversation about morality, the article makes a case that crime is _not_ a result of a lack of morality but the evolutionary desire for low-status people to compete for genes. I could make the case that morality was in itself an evolved abstract set of codes to do the same thing -- it's all in your perspective. You can "evolve out" higher concepts like morality, or you can "evolve in" those concepts. Without empirical data and reproducible results, it's speculative. Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy scientific-based speculation.
This is getting into the question of "are the soft sciences really science?" That's out of my pay grade. All I want to know is that given an initial set of reproducible conditions, can an idea give me a consistent set of results? If so, that's science to me. I freely acknowledge that the definition gets a lot looser for other folks. I'm definitely not the person to ask about any of that.
I also note that your quest for "reproducible results" was definitely met in the England/Wales vs Chicago murder statistics the article reproduced.
I am of the camp that the term pseudo-science is a derogatory one, and should remain so. Otherwise, how else should we label such things as SETI and Human Induced Global Warming to warn the uninformed that the rigor of the scientific method as it's applied in every other field is not being followed in these , ahem, "fields"?
As for whether pseudo-science is an apt definition of what the author engaged in, I'm afraid, without reading the quoted studies, I must remain uncommitted. I did very much enjoy the article, however.