The God gene hypothesis has been widely criticized by scientists and theologians alike. This hypothesis does not disprove God, lacks merit, and has not withstood the test of time.
The God gene hypothesis asserts that everything (including faith in God) has a purely natural explanation. These materialists, therefore, exclude God, the Creator, from their scientific endeavors. The result is empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human tradition and the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
According to Scripture, rejecting or dismissing God's existence is corrupt and leads to an evil life (Romans 1:18-32). Such a person lacks spiritual wisdom, so they are incapable of doing anything that pleases the Lord (Psalm 14:1). An unbeliever lives a life with a heart hardened against God, so they cannot understand God’s revealed truth (Ephesians 4:18). The Bible warns believers not to be taken captive by such deceitful philosophies (Colossians 2:8).
The notion that something within human genetics disproves God is not true. It stems from assuming that only the physical sciences are the arbiters of truth and knowledge (materialistic reductionism). Dean Hamer, author of The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes, states the following about his research: "This is a book about why humans believe, not whether those beliefs are true…This book is about whether God genes exist, not about whether there is a God" (New York: Doubleday, 2004, p. 16). This refreshingly sober disclosure about his aim shows that using Hamer's research as a means to disprove God is simply wrong.
Nevertheless, as a materialist, Hamer does not believe God exists, and thus does not see any supernatural component to life. His goal of finding a "God gene" lacks evidence, in part because of the simpler genetic models available when he did his research. Current genetic research has revealed that the gene, and DNA, is vastly more complex than understood at the turn of the century. His hypothesis has not stood the test of time. There is virtually no serious scientific or theological scholar who supports Hamer’s hypothesis.