No doubt the mechanism of natural selection can explain some things, such as why certain skin colors are more prevalent in climates in which they are adaptive.  But to suppose that natural selection can explain everything about human nature is absurd.  On this hypothesis, the only genes that are consistently passed on are the ones for traits that help us to pass on our genes.  Any genes which don’t should eventually disappear from the genome.  But is it really true that all human traits are adaptive in this sense?

It might be adaptive to enjoy exploring my environment, because I will be more likely to know where to find things like food.  But there is no adaptive value in seeking to know the meaning of life; how would it contribute to reproductive success to look for something which, on the natural selection hypothesis, isn’t even there to be found?  It might be adaptive to prefer rhythmic over arhythmic sounds, because rhythmic ones resemble Mama’s heartbeat.  But there is no adaptive value in being the sort of creature who is awed, humbled, and transported by the music of J.S. Bach.

I dare you to tell me the adaptive value of believing in God.  One eminent sociobiologist claims that we have genes for believing in God because belief in God unites the social group.  Hasn’t anyone ever told him that differing beliefs about God can tear apart the social group?  Besides -- why not just have genes for social unity?