The article states that humans are the only creatures that cry (I suppose they should say “only creatures known to cry”). The article begins by asking, rhetorically, “Why do we cry?” From there, it goes on to speculate that crying “evolved” as a mechanism that elicits sympathy from other people. To quote the article, “Fundamentally, crying is a way to get what you want — that’s why babies do it. (Sorry, mothers.) Or, that clever turn of phrase adults use: 'The squeaky wheel gets the oil.'”
I found this photo online. It's the same photo, side by side, except that the one on the right has had the tears digitally removed. I must say, I was a little surprised at the dramatically different impression given by the presence of tears. Perhaps there is something to the idea that crying provokes sympathy. So I will amend my earlier comment and at least admit the subject matter of the article is somewhat interesting.
Let me digress for a moment. I believe we have emotions because God has emotions and we are made in His image (Genesis 1:27). We are not like the animals (Genesis 2:20) and so I don't expect us to display (or not display) emotions the way animals do. This isn't really the point of my post, though, so let me return to the subject at hand.
The whole article is remarkably contrived and goes to great pains to explain to why crying supposedly evolved but misses a key point – namely, how crying evolved. You see, there's a lot more involved in crying than the production of tears. After all, tears are also produced to help clean the eye. Many animals produce tears for this purpose. Yet with crying comes an association with strong emotions, facial expressions, sobs, etc. Each of these had to evolve in order for the production of tears to be identified with a display of emotions. Furthermore, in order to garner sympathy, the observer must himself have already evolved the ability to recognize crying as a display of emotion.
Here's the problem: In hindsight, it's easy to speculate what survival advantages some particular trait might offer its hosts. However, evolution is not a directed process. It doesn't matter what advantage the end result might be; no trait will evolve unless there is some advantage for the host every step of the way. When some alleged ancestor first began over-producing tears, for example, it obviously did not garner sympathy from anyone or anything. “Evolution” did not know it would eventually be seen as a display of emotions and so that trait could not be said to have evolved to elicit sympathy.
The speculation about crying demonstrates the typical habit of evolutionists to proffer “why” some given trait has evolved. Birds evolved colorful feathers in order to attract a mate. Lions evolved thick manes to shield their heads and necks when fighting other lions. Some animals have evolved stripes as a means of camouflage. The list is goes on and on.
There's a sort of circular argument going on here. Animals that can run fast will catch more prey. Therefore, animals that can run fast evolved that ability in order to catch more prey. Do you see how that sounds a little silly?
The ability to identify the survival advantage of a particular trait does not begin to explain “why” the trait evolved. Even assuming evolution were true, I can say with certainty that crying did NOT evolve in order to elicit sympathy. To suggest any reason “why” a certain trait evolved ascribes a purpose to the process.
In this case, I know crying is the product of design. God made us emotional creatures. Perhaps we do empathize with people when they cry. However, whatever selective advantage might be realized from crying is not any kind of argument for evolution. It's merely an attempt to describe the advantage after the fact of it already existing.