How does this point to your particular deity, and not any other?
Did you mean to ask, could there be any other possible explanation besides evolution? Sure. Aliens did it. Or, we’re just part of a simulation and the simulator is an adolescent who thinks sex is really cool.
But if you’re going to rule out evolution, then you’re basically asking a question that you don’t really want answered. You just want people to confirm the answer you already decided on. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.
Perhaps the OP could consider this.
If you accept the idea that the existence of orgasms make it very easy to accept that God wanted to insure His children kept His earth adequately populated, do you also find it very easy to accept the idea that Zeus wanted to insure His children kept His earth adequately populated? And if you don’t accept your argument as proof that Zeus exists, why do you accept it as proof that the Christian God exists? Why is one god more plausible than another?
Yup. Just as non-God people expect religious ones to be persuaded by reason. Different ways to approach what’s meaningful to you in this universe.
Did evolution make that happen?
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe indirectly, yes. As the central nervous system complexity evolved, the likelihood of bugs in the system increased.
Now that the earth is more than “adequately” populated, why doesn’t your god make sex painful, in order to cut the population down to a manageable size?
There is a way to turn this into a “not a bug, it’s a feature” joke. But I ain’t gonna be the one to do it. 
There are a number of characteristics that are hard (but not of course impossible) to explain by evolution, such as altruism, eusocial insects, etc. Pleasure in sex is one of the easiest, perhaps THE easiest to explain by evolution. It’s rather bizarre that the OP picked this one.
–Mark
If God hates masturbation so much, why did he make it so pleasurable?
Because: He’s an absentee landlord. Worship that? NEVER!
Actually this isn’t true. I know many people (me being one of them) who were brought up super, ultra religious and as they got older and more informed, abandoned their earlier beliefs of “god did it” to “facts and science actually make a lot more sense”.
Leaving out evolution, maybe God is a voyeur.
You kidding? “God did it” works perfectly fine. It even explains away inconsistencies and awkward facts and contrary answers. So long as you believe “God did it,” you’re good.
“I used to be an atheist, until I realized I had nothing to shout during blowjobs. “Oh Random Chance! Oh Random Chance!” just doesn’t cut it….”
(Robert Anton Wilson)
Aw Phu Cat, he ain’t coming back.
Actually, no.
Just say’n… 
As to the OP, it’s just logical, as has been mentioned upthread. Organisms that enjoy sex will do it more and have more babies. Organisms that don’t enjoy it won’t do it so much (if at all) and eventually their lineage will die out, leaving just the ones that enjoy it. You don’t have to call it evolution if that word offends you, but that’s the mechanism.
I’m no expert, but it seems awfully difficult to shout while giving a blowjob.
Though I know this is directed at atheists, I think a theist perspective is helpful too in understanding this.
I’ve never done drugs, but I will say sex is one of, if not THE, most physically pleasurable thing there is. That said, as much as I do enjoy it, it’s not the most pleasurable thing to me. Gun to my head, if I were faced with a choice of never having sex again or never hearing music again, I would give up sex.
Frankly, this is an odd limitation. In general, unless one rejects evolution, then evolution is the answer. And while I’ve known some theists who reject evolution, I’ve never met an atheist who did. It’s exactly the same sentiment, in reverse, as an atheist asking you why you don’t believe in evolution, but don’t don’t expect them to take any explanation appealing to God. If you believe God did it in some other manner, how would you approach that question?
I think you’re misunderstanding how evolution works. It’s through selective pressures, and it makes sense that sex is going to be highly pleasurable in that sense. Looking at reproduction from a purely logical sense, if we didn’t have an instinct to have children and find them cute and lovable, all we’d see children as is a massive drain on our resources.
And that’s where the pleasure comes in. The pleasure IS the instinct, and it’s particularly pleasurable, because it’s particularly important from an evolutionary perspective; if you don’t reproduce, you’re not part of the equation. From that, it naturally follows that those who only have a mild instinct might still overcome it for the sake of other resources. Thus, those who have a stronger instinct are more likely to have more children, and thus their genes will grow to dominate the gene pool.
But obviously, there’s a maximum too, because if it’s too high, people spend all their time having sex or have too many children for the resources to support. At least up until relatively recently, it seems to me like it was a good balance though, as we’ve been remarkably successful.
And I’m not sure how any of this in any way contracts this implied will of God. If God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, and we do, does it matter if the mechanism is by evolution or by some other means?