My major is Psychology, and my minor is Philosophy.  Both understand and utilize evolution in their own ways. 

Often Psychology frames evolution within the context of the nature Vs nurture debate, which seems to have been rather decidedly settled to be nature AND nurture.  The term nature basically refers to our biological makeup, and because the claim is that nature to some degree affects our psychological constitution, watching to see if shifts in one’s biology affect their psychological constitution is central to psychology.  Since evolution is the change in a populations biological makeup over time, Psychologies interest in the correlation between biological change and psychological change is contextualized by evolution. Without evolution as a theory, Psychology would be talking about biological change with no meta-narrative explaining why or how biological change happens, making it difficult to explain the importance of such research surrounding such change.  

As for Philosophy, with it being what underpins the natural sciences, rather than a field which is dependent upon the theories of such sciences, it treats the theory of evolution as a metaphysical claim, which can be used as a premise to support other theories, given that it is taken to be true, or it can be completely ignored – as with the field of formal logic.  Evolution most clearly appears in philosophy within philosophical questions regarding humanity, such as what makes a human human. This question is often answered by comparing humans to other animals, and given our present scientific understanding of evolution, our differences are constituted by evolution providing that gap between us and apes. Because of this, evolution shows up again as context, explaining why the comparisons between apes and humans are so important to parsing out makes us human, and not apes.  

Another way that evolution appears in philosophy is as a constituent part of all of human knowledge which is yet to be fully integrated.  50 or so years ago, there was a philosophical movement to try to unify human knowledge, so that we did not have to refer to disparate fields like biology, physics, psychology and linguistics, and would rather let us reach the information of all the fields from a common ground of information.  While Evolution is a unifying theme of the sciences, it is only thematic, and does not explain all things. As an example of our current knowledge’s failings, we have trouble reconciling theories of consciousness in psychology with the many theories of physics, or biology, and even anthropology to some degree.  We would say each theory is true, but we have not constructed a set of dependent relationships which make them hang together in a shared world. 

The videos changed my view of these fields by adding the sense that what they are doing, in part is telling a story.  Their story is either fleshed out by evolution, or evolution as a story is fleshed out by them. These fields seem to be a like description meant to be passed down to the next generation.