Exploring the why of religion and searching for its original origin are among the fundamental concerns of thinkers and researchers in the philosophy of religion and guide various approaches and positions on matters such as religious realism or non-realism, the functions of religion, religious historical or metahistorical perspective, religious pluralism or non-pluralism, and other issues in this regard. David Sloan Wilson seeks an adaptive and compromise explanation of religion based on the principle of natural selection and Darwinian evolution. The present article aims to examine his view in a descriptive-analytical manner and reveal its strengths and weaknesses. The main question is to what extent Wilson's view has been successful in explaining religion and is it capable of providing a valid and comprehensive explanation of religion? The main hypothesis is that Wilson has failed in this regard. Studies have shown that Wilson's adaptive view suffers from shortcomings and inadequacies, including: inability to determine the epistemic value of religious beliefs and failure to provide a comprehensive and final explanation of them; imposing restrictions on a multifaceted matter such as religion and considering it as limited and incomplete; ambiguity in evolutionary compatibility and the challenges of determining it in religion; avoidance of some standards and the necessary scientific neutrality; inconsistency with the rational aspects of religion and the focus and intentions of religious people; the risk of fallacies such as reductionism; and the lack of a clear demarcation between religion and some secular ideologies.