The field of evolutionary psychology has often been the target of allegations that its hypotheses are unfalsifiable. This article revisits this decades-old critique by examining the logic of falsifiability and the specific criteria required for a hypothesis to be considered falsified. We evaluate the multiple levels of analysis in the heuristic framework from which evolutionary psychology hypotheses are derived. We then present evidence of several evolutionary psychological hypotheses that have generated specific, falsifiable predictions; undergone multiple empirical tests; and been refuted. Specifically, we discuss the evidentiary status of (a) the ovulatory shift in mate preferences (dual-mating) hypothesis, (b) the mate deprivation hypothesis of rape, and (c) the kin altruism hypothesis for the evolution of male homosexuality. We contrast these with the wide range of evolutionary psychology hypotheses whose specific predictions have been robustly supported by empirical data. Notably, studies reveal that many academics continue to perceive evolutionary psychology as unfalsifiable, despite evidence to the contrary, a misconception that has also permeated mainstream culture. These pervasive misconceptions speak to the critical need for ongoing efforts to clarify the scientific methodologies and evidentiary standards employed in the field of evolutionary psychology. Our discussion addresses implicit beliefs underlying allegations of unfalsifiability, such as beliefs about unverifiability, the varying levels of quality among hypotheses in the field, and the necessity for enhancing conceptual and empirical precision in future research. By illustrating that hypotheses generated by evolutionary psychology can be directly tested with appropriate scientific rigor, we dispel these pervasive misconceptions and highlight the field's heuristic potential for generating valuable insights into human behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).