That's called a just-so story. And as one answerer here put it: "I can say a computer analyzed anything if I program it."
Actually, if we simply evolved from animals (from an atheistic evolutionary process) how did we come to be moral creatures? Why are we always talking about professional ethics, and medical ethics, and business ethics, and bioethics, and so forth? And where did true altruism come from (that which is done without any expectation or hope of reward)? The “Oh, we’re just social animals” argument might work better if all we found in humans was reciprocal altruism (I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine).
Could non-moral, amoral matter combined with time and chance and natural selection be an adequate cause for this? The demands of Darwinian evolution are very simple—survive and pass on your genes. If people are merely products of physical evolution and “survival of the fittest,” why do we sacrifice for each other? Where does courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty, and compassion come from? Why do people sacrifice their hopes and dreams and pleasures and even themselves for others?
And why do we have hospitals? We should let the sick people die; we don’t want them passing on their genes. An atheistic evolutionist who is a medical doctor is really inconsistent. Eugenics is the correct application of that worldview (if you don’t know about Eugenics, you need to look it up).
Why would there be holocaust rescuers like Schindler, the German businessman, who risked his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chambers?
And how does “survival of the fittest” fit with jumping on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers, or pushing someone out of the way to take the oncoming car yourself, or jumping in front of the gunman to take a bullet for someone else? It’s often the strong who do these things. How can you procreate and pass your genes on to your offspring if you are dead?
This seems to be the opposite of what evolution would produce—in a struggle for survival and the natural law of “might makes right,” will the existence of a conscience help or hinder survival?
In May of 2009, Psychologist Dr. Paul Bloom wrote an article for Natural History called In Science We Trust and said, “There is by now a large body of research suggesting that humans are natural-born creationists. When we see nonrandom structure and design, we assume that it was created by an intelligent being.” He went on to say, “...psychologist Margaret Evans of the University of Michigan found the most direct evidence for natural-born creationism. She carried out a series of studies in which she asked children flat out where they believe animals come from. Their favorite answer is God. That is true of children whose parents are fundamentalist Christians—no surprise—but it is also true for children whose parents accept the theory of natural selection! Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was right to complain, then, that it seems ‘as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism.’”
And then, in June of 2012, there was an article about an Oxford study. Dr. Justin Barrett (senior researcher) said, “The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose” (Children are born believers in God, academic claims). He said that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argued that even children raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. He said that anthropologists have found that in some cultures children believe in God even when religious teachings are withheld from them.
It seems that Blaise Pascal (the French scientist and philosopher) was right: “There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing...” (Pensees).
The question, then, is which understanding of origins best explains why humanity exhibits this “intuitive theism”?
The interesting thing is, for every longing, there seems to be something that satisfies it. As C. S. Lewis argued, “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world” (Mere Christianity).
Also, as Cal pointed out, there are plenty of animals and insects that cooperate extremely well in a group without religion.