Evolution and the Mind

In chapter 2 of Mitch Stokes' book, How to be an Atheist, the author ponders how evolution could have led to higher cognitive functions - the ones that science requires. The theory of evolution is grounded in a primary drive: the pursuit of activities that will enhance the organism's chances of survival. Philosopher Patricia Churchland offers this summary of the principle chore of nervous systems: "Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in...feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing." Taking her at her word, Stokes starts poking at the premise, asking about cognitive abilities that humans have that are not needed for these activities:

But what about highly theoretical realms like quantum mechanics, general relativity, and superstring theory? Should we expect our faculties to be reliable on such topics? According to evolution, our brains evolved solely for the task of survival, not for the construction of complex theories that describe entities and events entirely beyond the realm of observation....If unguided evolution is anywhere near correct, then our cognitive faculties were not crafted or calibrated for the unobservable realm. And this realm occupies most of science....

If indeed evolution was (is - is it still going on?) focused on survival - feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing - then where did these higher forms of thinking come from and if they didn't come by evolution, how reliable are they? And how do these "theoretical accounts" contribute to the struggle for existence? Even Darwin had his doubts: "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind [theoretical accounts of the world], which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

One could argue that unguided evolution has provided humans with reliable cognitive faculties, but there are good evolutionary reasons to believe that these faculties are only reliable when it comes to topics related to survival. Stokes writes, "Now, it's not impossible that unguided evolution went beyond the call of duty, making us reliable about highly theoretical topics. But sober skepticism [intellectual caution about one's beliefs without falling into cynicism] suggests that we should seriously doubt it" (emphasis added).

Given that much of science tends to live in the theoretical or unobservable realm and that it is reasonable - according to evolutionary theory - to question the reliability of cognitive faculties in this realm, then how reliable is science in proving the existence or non-existence of things in that realm...like God.