Why Boyer is Full of It

I have no problems with the premises that Boyer puts forth, especially the idea of falsifying general biases toward religious thinking. However, I do not think he even remotely proves his points or backs his claims. In the short Proudfoot article, which is exemplary of the kind of paper Boyer didn’t write, we see with a sound philosophical argument that when dealing with “Explanatory Reduction” (which is attempted, but no where near achieved by Boyer) that one “must be prepared to give reasons for his ascription of those beliefs and judgements to the subject”. The reason why Boyer falls short, is his reasons for his ascriptions are insufficient.
For instance, there are many times when Boyer states conjecture as fact, failing to provide any real, confirmable, or concrete support. This becomes deceiving to the reader when he then uses those “stated as facts” to form arguments, that appear sound, but that really rely on evidence he pretends to have submitted. This is a common slight of hand with persuasive writing, but it is a logical fallacy and a cheat.
For example, on page five of ten on my printed version, he sites “a systematic investigation of these tacit concepts,” but he never cites the investigators, or even elaborate on what field of investigating is at hand. He simply slides in the language of a “systematic investigation” so that he appears to be credible. Yet I have severe doubts wether or not any investigation has taken place at all. This is no isolated incident, it occurs again with “Developmental research” the second paragraph of the Exchange, Morality and Misfortune section; “Psychological investigation” first paragraph of What Makes Religion “Natural”; “Some evolutionary biologists think...”three paragraphs into the latter; (and then this one is my favorite:) “All this supports what anthropologists have been saying for a long time on the basis of evidence gathered in the most various cultural environments.” And etc. etc.... In all of these cases, Boyer gives no indication of ANY proof of credentials behind these claims. Where it may be that psychological investigations are indeed going on, or that biologists may indeed be thinking one thing or another; it is still necessary for scholarly argument to present at least one verifiable representative of this view point, or one citation of the actual work itself. If these desiderata are not met, it becomes severely questionable as to the factual existence of the claims at stake.
There are also many further examples of unsupported statement “as fact” beyond the realm of simply naming false, or unverifiable credentials. Take for example the un-cited, and unsupported claim on page 6 of 10, that “Moral intuitions appear long before children represent the powers of supernatural agents, they appear in the same way in cultures where no one is much interested in supernatural agents. . .” He has given no study at all to back this claim, and no argument to lead me to believe that this is so. He simply states it as fact, because he finds it convenient for his argument. Further examples of this are: “the first thing to understand about religion is that it does not activate one particular capacity in the mind. . .” page 2 of 10; “these combinations of explicit violation and tacit inferences are culturally widespread and may constitute a memory optimum.” page 5 of 10; Don’t even get me started on the suspicious “Religious Brain Map” on page 3 of 10.
It is evident to me that Boyer prefers subtle tricks of rhetoric, and deception to factual methods of proof and argument. There is little if any well grounded support for his article. Does it bother anyone else that the second sited source doesn’t appear until page 5? (Even then it is very ambiguous how much material in the paragraph is referable to the citation.) Not to mention that the few parts cited are rarely crucial focal points of Boyer’s arguments, but simply background information he uses to twist as he pleases.