Putting aside the question of whether God exists, why would it be surprising that an animal with a brain sophisticated enough to contemplate its own death would evolve protective mechanisms against that eventuality?
Perhaps, but religion is largely something that we came up with through thinking. When you need to control a bunch of slaves, it's nice to be able to say, "your life sucks now, but if you work really hard, there will be PRESENTS waiting for you when you die! YAY!! It's not me, your hated master, saying this; it's God! The creator of the whole Universe loves you if you work yourself to death. So get out there and do it." Very convincing story, and it mostly worked. (Religion plays on a number of human desires; wanting something more, wanting to fit in with everyone else, etc.)
There's something dubious about my point: does excessive worry about death result in people having fewer children?
Maybe the evolutionary pressure comes from telling people that God wants them to have children. And so those with biology favorable to belief in God would have more children.
Having no spiritual beliefs/religion (aka atheism) satisfies human desires.
Ex.
Evolution has several flaws and can never be proven. Even scientifically it cannot be proven. It is purely the fruit of an individual's imagination, conviction and desire. Nothing more than this.
"Scientifically" nothing can be proven. Theories are simple suppositions (hypotheses) supported by evidence. When we have found an overwhelming body of evidence in support of a particular theory we consider that theory "proven." By this standard, we can consider evolution "proven."
In essence, it would take a significantly large corpus of data to refute the theory of evolution.
That's rather an oversimplification in practice. "Just one piece of evidence" can almost always be explained in many, many different ways. Overturning an apparently well-established theory generally takes a substantial accumulation of contrary evidence, and preferably the appearance of a new and better theory.
So, suppose someone found a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian. J B S Haldane notwithstanding, biologists would not abandon evolution, nor should they. They'd start looking at possibilities like fraud; previously unknown ways for things to get fossilized very rapidly; some screwup in their dating of the relevant bits of rock; and so forth. It would take a whole lot of fossil rabbits, and preferably some other evidence too, to make "evolution is all wrong" a better theory than those. That doesn't mean evolution is unfalsifiable; it means it's got a whole lot of evidence and arguments behind it, and overturning it would take a correspondingly large weight of evidence.
