Religion is a byproduct of evolution - wishful thinking, agency detection, or group cohesion.

The argument is self-defeating and explanatorily incomplete. (1) Self-defeat (Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, 1993, refined in Where the Conflict Really Lies): if naturalistic evolution gave us all our belief-forming faculties, and evolution selects for survival, not truth, then all our beliefs are the products of truth-indifferent processes - including the belief that naturalistic evolution is true. The argument saws through its own branch. (2) Genetic fallacy: even if religion has evolutionary roots, that says nothing about the truth of its claims. If God wanted humans to be able to recognize him, giving them cognitive machinery for doing so would be exactly what we would expect. "Human beings have brains built to detect God" is as compatible with theism as with atheism. (3) The HADD story predicts vague animism, not specific, historical, propositional religion with creeds, canons, philosophical arguments, and martyrs. Christianity's specific claims (a crucified man raised bodily at a dateable moment in a specific city) are exactly not what agency-detection misfires would produce. (4) Empirically: religious belief correlates not with superstition and credulity but with measurable mental health, pro-sociality, and (in multiple large-scale studies) well-being; Barrett himself (a committed Christian) argues the data are best explained by humans being "born believers" in the sense that we are built to perceive transcendence. That is what you would expect if God made us. (5) Many leading philosophers and scientists have argued naturalism cannot account for consciousness, rationality, objective morality, or the intelligibility of the universe - each a prerequisite for even making the argument. If naturalism is true, we have no warrant to trust our belief that naturalism is true.