A few weeks ago, a post on the Evolution of Religion over at Suicide Girls came to my attention through PZ Myers' excellent blog pharyngula. [Note: Suicide Girls' web site contains photos of punk girls in various stages of undress, so if that offends your sensibilities, don't click on the 'general' link I've provided.]
I've been following this developing field for a few years now, and am happy to see it covered in the 'popular' blogs. R. Elisabeth Cornwell (U Colorado) has offered a second part "Why Women are Bound to Religion: An Evolutionary Perspective" seeking an explanation for why women tend to be more religious, even while religions tend to be misogynistic. Her argument, essentially, seems to be that the burden of ensuring the survival of offspring falls disproportionally on women, and hence women will be more susceptible to the social benefits of being religious.
Obviously, I'm worried about this in two respects: first, because I tend to be warry of all evolutionary psychology, and second because I worry that these claims are often misinterpreted by those with agendas on both sides of the theist / atheist debates.
However, I have found that the thesis of religion as a by product of human cognition is a fertile ground for undergraduate discussion and research, and encourage others to take it up. Boyer's books, in particular (Religion Explained and The Naturalness of Religious Ideas) are both accessible by undergrads. Unfortunately, I haven't had the same success with Lawson's and MacCauly's work, even though I believe the theory should be introduced alongside Boyer's.