riiiiiiiiiight

If there were empirical evidence for god it would be testable and measurable and so we could investigate what is currently thought to be supernatural. Once testable and measurable, they stop being supernatural as they are observable, we can then hypothesise on their cause. If it is unmeasurable and unobservable, then it is practically no different from something that does not exist.

A process which has nothing to do with evolution.

Of course, god refuses to prove he exists as that would remove the need for faith.

That's not a question of evolution. Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. You cannot know an immaterial being empirically. It's a contradiction.

Some humans have.

I don't think gaining empirical knowledge requires evolution. I'm also pretty certain that we don't know of the existence of supernatural beings because there aren't any.

They say the existence of god cannot be proved nor disproved. But I think has too many problems to be true. The problem of theodicy is but one.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then him God?” – Epicurus, ancient Greek philosopher

Reasonably speaking we can't empirically know anything, we can only work with evidence at hand. However, if there were an omnipotent being/s they could prove it empirically if they wanted to, by definition. However, omnipotence has been disproved by the simple question "can god create a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it?" If so, he's no longer omnipotent because he wouldn't be able to lift the stone. If not, he's not omnipotent because he can't do it. I'd also argue that evolution doesn't move towards a point or goal. It's simply about what survives best in its own environment. So, unless it was created by something with a purpose, its just a process of life and reproduction.
Anyway, just my thoughts.