Theistic Evolution - Insight & Answers

[tormund]

Hey, does anyone have any insight to theistic evolution(the idea that God used evolution to bring about humankind) and why or why not it really makes sense? t'would be awesome if you have some answers.

Tor

 

[russ_watters]

There really isn't anything to discuss, since it has no effect at all on the science of evolution. One can believe God did whatever one wants to believe. The idea is simply a way for religious people to choose to believe both.

Also, I'm not sure this thread will fit our guidelines against religious discussion...

 

[Moridin]

There are a few different version of theistic evolution, varying from a deity creating life, then allowed evolution to take place, a deity guiding it, a deity intervening in different places in time and so on. Some of these are both compatible and incompatible with the science of evolution.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Hey, does anyone have any insight to theistic evolution(the idea that God used evolution to bring about humankind) and why or why not it really makes sense? t'would be awesome if you have some answers.

Tor

I think it's a very anthropocentric view. If there was a creator who was using evolution, I think he/she used it to bring about cats. Humans were just an unfortunate unseen event that also happened. :)

And evolution seems a rather lengthy and cruel way to bring any species about. Couldn't a kind creator do it some other way - just pop 'em into existence?

 

[a4mula]

And evolution seems a rather lengthy and cruel way to bring any species about. Couldn't a kind creator do it some other way - just pop 'em into existence?

It boils down to God's promise of choice. In order for a rational person to deny God there needs to be a plausible explanation of our existence and creation. If the only answer were that we were created, well then that doesn't leave much of a choice.

 

[Focus]

I think it's a very anthropocentric view. If there was a creator who was using evolution, I think he/she used it to bring about cats. Humans were just an unfortunate unseen event that also happened. :)

And evolution seems a rather lengthy and cruel way to bring any species about. Couldn't a kind creator do it some other way - just pop 'em into existence?

To be honest, it is far more elegant for god (given his existence) made the universe as a bunch of domino pieces that fall and knock the next one along. What is lengthy and cruel is purely subjective. You only say it is long because you die after 100 or so years, you say it is cruel because like every animal you don't enjoy death.

I think the idea that some supernatural force being around at the start is plausable. I think him being around now is not, and it is even less plausible that he actually cares about humans. To believe in evolution, I think you need to stop with this superiority complex of thinking humans are special and we will be in existence for an infinite time.

 

[gabrielh]

I don't have an issue with people believing God utilized evolution for creation, but it does seem somewhat contradictory, as God himself would have to "evolve." Complex things only come into existence through gradual evolution, and God would have to be even more complex than that which he created, so it would only make sense that he too was created somehow. It leads to a regress, and I think the answer lies in whether or not one subscribes to NOMA.

 

[madness]

Some people do believe that God evolves - look up Process Theology. The argument that God would have himself needed a creator was given by David Hume. Theists believe that God doesn't need an explanation for his existence, wheras Hume asked why the universe should need an explanation.

 

[madness]

In fact I just looked up Process Theology and found out it was written by Alfred North Whitehead who cowrote Principia Mathematica.

 

[Moridin]

It boils down to God's promise of choice. In order for a rational person to deny God there needs to be a plausible explanation of our existence and creation. If the only answer were that we were created, well then that doesn't leave much of a choice.

This is just a rationalization to be able to accept the lack of empirical evidence.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

 

[JoeDawg]

On the one hand the idea of a 'creator' god makes a certain amount of intuitive sense. The universe exists... so where did it come from. Our common sense notion of causation tells us that everything that happens seems to follow from something else.

Physicists often trace causation back to a 'big bang' of some sort... but what caused the big bang, or if even talking about a cause for it makes any sense at all, is pure conjecture.

On the down side, you have the infinite regress problem. There is no logical way to deal with the question: If God created the universe, then what created god?

If one says: 'well god didn't need a creator he has always existed'... then you really haven't answered any question at all. Since one could just as easily make that same claim 'about the universe' without the need for any god whatsoever.

If 'something' can exist uncaused, then why not the universe. We don't know enough about the universe to know if there is any need for a creator god. So its pretty irrational to believe in one, simply because some guy had a dream about one.

God, in the deist sense, is basically just a placeholder, an unknown variable, for 'first cause'. Others who believe in a more active god suffer from other logical contradictions.

Some eastern mystics get around this by saying that there was no beginning that everything moves in cycles forever. Others say something along the lines of the universe is one... so there was no creation, just different aspects of a whole. This eliminates the need for a first cause, but its unsatisfying to a lot of westerners.

Ultimately what you believe about gods, which are supernatural by definition, is not really something that science can address. And if we find a way to fit god into science... well he's probably not much of a god: ie he's more like a powerful alien in the scifi sense.

 

[a4mula]

This is just a rationalization to be able to accept the lack of empirical evidence.

I apologize, for some reason I'm not getting what it is you're saying here. Could you be a little more clear as to what you're referring to.

If you're suggesting that this is a way for believers to come to terms with the overwhelming evidence of natural systems (such as evolution) then I'd say you're absolutely correct.

Otherwise if you're suggesting that believers need some proof of the existence of their own God(s) then I'd say it's not required. Religions have done an excellent job of instilling in people the ability to overlook virtually any inconsistencies with their belief by preaching faith. Proof has never been a prerequisite for religion.

 

[madness]

An interesting take on the subject is Tielhard de Chardin. He took the idea of evolution beyond its normal setting, and argued that the universe is heading towards higher levels of complexity and consciousness. He believed that this process needed a higher being to pull it forward. Many others have also attempted to use evolution to support the theistic view rather than detract from it.

 

[Moridin]

I apologize, for some reason I'm not getting what it is you're saying here. Could you be a little more clear as to what you're referring to.

If you're suggesting that this is a way for believers to come to terms with the overwhelming evidence of natural systems (such as evolution) then I'd say you're absolutely correct.

Otherwise if you're suggesting that believers need some proof of the existence of their own God(s) then I'd say it's not required. Religions have done an excellent job of instilling in people the ability to overlook virtually any inconsistencies with their belief by preaching faith. Proof has never been a prerequisite for religion.

I am simply pointing out that the rationalization you made for the lack of evidence is unbiblical.

 

[c12_z]

There really isn't anything to discuss, since it has no effect at all on the science of evolution. One can believe God did whatever one wants to believe. The idea is simply a way for religious people to choose to believe both.

This is the size of it. I really don't think there is much else that can be usefully said? There are doubtless a million notions and ideas floating around out there about how God and evolution are/can-be "reconciled/unified", but none if it, by very definition, can move beyond:

One can believe God did whatever one wants to believe.

We have our "singularity", whilst they they had their God.

It is just the dominant forces of thought, and such, in those days were not of a scientific mindset as we understand the term: God was the product of that time's attempts to understand just how it is we are, and what causes things to be the way they are. "God" being the end-point of knowledge and understanding.

Nowadays, science in the modern sense is the dominant method for such things: our current end-point of knowledge and understanding is the "singularity".

Hey, does anyone have any insight to theistic evolution(the idea that God used evolution to bring about humankind) and why or why not it really makes sense?

Everyone has equal insight (which is to say equally one or zero, depending on which way you want to look at it), IMO. Does it make sense? It makes sense if you want it to. I'll go in for it if I see a good reason too, but I am truly, epically, skeptical that reason will ever arise.

I've read various philosophical arguments going for the existence of God, but none of them have, IMO, been convincing. They always seem to end up with the same problem(s). Especially, I would say, those arguing for God-as-the-Uncaused-Cause. Until a convincing argument for God can pop up, I don't see how there can be a convincing argument for God being responsible for evolution.

 

[Moridin]

I can think of one consistent version of theistic evolution, but that involves an evil god who made 98-99% of all living organisms go extinct because he enjoyed to watch their suffering and of course plants all the evidence we see of unguided evolution just to fool us.

 

[madness]

I think that's being a bit harsh. It seems reasonable that a person who believes in God should also believe in evolution (99% of christians do) and any person who believes in both would believe in theistic evolution. Why would a theistic evolution necessarily have to be guided? I think the whole point in theistic evolution is the God does not need to intervene. We all know suffering exists and that was a problem for christians before evolution was discovered. In fact it is an integral part of many people's faiths.

 

[JoeDawg]

I think that's being a bit harsh. It seems reasonable that a person who believes in God should also believe in evolution (99% of christians do) and any person who believes in both would believe in theistic evolution.

99% of christians believe in evolution?? You might want to provide a reference for that figure. Most of the polls I have read about indicate the figure is much lower.

From a quick google search:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

 

[atyy]

Theistic evolution does not make sense (yet?), because you haven't defined "god". Or it does make sense if you define "god" as the "laws of physics" or the meta-laws of physics (like Smolin's evolution of law).

 

[Math Is Hard]

It boils down to God's promise of choice. In order for a rational person to deny God there needs to be a plausible explanation of our existence and creation. If the only answer were that we were created, well then that doesn't leave much of a choice.

That "promise of choice" thing bugs me. I'm not sure which religions propose that, but it's kind of like believing in an "insecure girlfriend god" - I need you to prove that you love me!

 

[Math Is Hard]

To be honest, it is far more elegant for god (given his existence) made the universe as a bunch of domino pieces that fall and knock the next one along. What is lengthy and cruel is purely subjective. You only say it is long because you die after 100 or so years, you say it is cruel because like every animal you don't enjoy death.

It is absolutely "lengthy" and "inelegant", and in fact, cruel, in contrast with the alternative of instantaneous creation of desired species (which would be within the presumed almighty creator's power.) It has nothing to do with human perspective. A creator would know what the creations' experiences would be, and this includes their knowing their suffering. As I said before, species could just be popped into existence in perfect, desired form, no evolution and suffering involved.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That "promise of choice" thing bugs me. I'm not sure which religions propose that, but it's kind of like believing in an "insecure girlfriend god" - I need you to prove that you love me!

This is all taken out of context. The "choice" is between good and evil. The post that you referenced is a personal interpretation and not that of any bibilical teachings. However, many would say that we are easily fooled if we aren't close to God. Some fundamentalist religions do teach that science is essentially trickery made possible by the devil.

Speaking generally to the tone of the thread, I agree with Russ in that theistic evolution is a view that recognizes both scientific and biblical teachings. Like most of issues of faith, the claim cannot be falsified.

 

[Coldcall]

Hey, does anyone have any insight to theistic evolution(the idea that God used evolution to bring about humankind) and why or why not it really makes sense? t'would be awesome if you have some answers.

Tor

Its hard to prove either way. Personally I am agnostic because i refuse to believe there is or is not a god (of some type) unless someone can show me some evidence.

However I think there is circumstantial evidence that questions whether dna is a natural product of the earth. I think the dna architecture we see in all of life is kind of strange in that it seems to have just appeared, in a fairly complex configuration a relatively short time after the Earth's formation.

Evolution appears perfectly natural because its been so slow, blind trial and error. But the question of where the modular dna platform originated from is more of a mystery to me.

 

[madness]

JoeDawg - you're poll is only refers to American Christians and is quite severely skewed because of this. Creationism mainly developed in America relatively recently and is not representative of most Christians. I should probably state that I am not a Christian (or any other religion). I don't think there are any more problems with believing in theistic evolution than there are in believing in God in general. Basically I don't think evolution did anything to detract from a belief in God.

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg - you're poll is only refers to American Christians and is quite severely skewed because of this. Creationism mainly developed in America relatively recently and is not representative of most Christians.

Ok, well first I'd say you are wrong. The major source of modern biblical literalism is the Protestant Reformation, which started in Europe. Before that, its harder to pin down, since priests and scholars were really the only one's with any real access to the text. Saying that creationism is an American phenomenon is simply incorrect though. Its not even limited to Christians.

But please provide the source for your 99% statistic... I'd really like to see that research.

 

[turbo]

I think it's a very anthropocentric view. If there was a creator who was using evolution, I think he/she used it to bring about cats. Humans were just an unfortunate unseen event that also happened. :)

Humans were not an "unfortunate unseen event". If a creator made cats, he or she would also have to make a race of worker-slaves that would care for the cats.

 

[madness]

I admit that 99% was a bit high I didnt mean it literally. But a study in science compared belief in evolution in 32 european countries, turkey and japan and found that the only country where less people believe in evolution than america is turkey. I know creationism didn't originate in america but i said it mainly developed there. Before about the 1920s there was virtually no creationists in america but the trend grew quickly. Other countries didn't develope this trend.

 

[JoeDawg]

I admit that 99% was a bit high I didnt mean it literally. But a study in science compared belief in evolution in 32 european countries, turkey and japan and

Europe is one of the most secularlized regions on the planet. No wonder your stats are so out of proportion. Include africa, south america, and asia, and the numbers would change drastically. That is where the missionaries go.

Before about the 1920s there was virtually no creationists in america but the trend grew quickly. Other countries didn't develope this trend.

Sorry, still wrong. Biblical literalism has a long tradition. It may have become controversial recently... largely because of Darwin, but its always been there. Every religion has a creation story, and I haven't seen one yet that doesn't have to do backflips to account for the scientific evidence. There are still plenty of people who don't believe in evolutionary theory.

 

[Helios]

Polytheistic Evolution

What about polytheistic evolution? Polytheism is exactly as valid as theism so polytheistic evolution is exactly as valid as theistic evolution.

 

[madness]

In Canada 58% of people accept evolution, in america only 14% (Gallup poll). I think it's clear that christians outside of america are much less likely to be creationist and in fact I'm surprised anyone would even argue against this point.

 

[JoeDawg]

In Canada 58% of people accept evolution, in america only 14% (Gallup poll). I think it's clear that christians outside of america are much less likely to be creationist and in fact I'm surprised anyone would even argue against this point.

You are cherry picking stats. Implying that Canada is representative of the world outside the USA is nuts.

 

[madness]

I have given stats for 32 countries in Europe, Turkey, Japan and Canada. You have given one for America.

 

[Moridin]

In Canada 58% of people accept evolution, in america only 14% (Gallup poll). I think it's clear that christians outside of america are much less likely to be creationist and in fact I'm surprised anyone would even argue against this point.

It is of course impossible for a Christian to accept the full implications of ateleological evolution, so either they are accepting a watered-down version of evolution or compartmentalizing.

 

[JoeDawg]

I have given stats for 32 countries in Europe, Turkey, Japan and Canada. You have given one for America.

Canada has 33 million people.
There are probably 500 million or so people in the European Union.
There are about 300 million or so in the United States.

Indian alone has over 1 Billion.
South America has almost 400 million
Africa has about a billion


You are cherry picking. People who live in Europe live very different lives from those in south America and Africa. So EUROPE is not a good 'representative' sample, not matter how many people live there.

Comparing the United states to the EU is a much fairer comparison, both population wise... and culturally. And they are still very different on this issue.

So you really haven't said much of anything, and you certainly haven't supported the notion that the USA is unique with regards belief in evolution. You're ignoring all the most religious countries. And gee wiz... that might have something to do with how they view the world.

 

[madness]

Moridin, it may seem impossible to you to both be a Chrisian and believe in evolution, but there are many people who do. A lot of people have used evolution to support their faith - existentialist theologians Paul Tillich and Martin Buber, Tielhard de Chardin and the advocates of Process Theology. I think they would certainly disagree with your statement that a Christian can't believe in evolution. There are many, many scientists who are practicing Christians, John Polkinghorne being one of the most vocal.

 

[buffordboy23]

And evolution seems a rather lengthy and cruel way to bring any species about. Couldn't a kind creator do it some other way - just pop 'em into existence?

The puzzle that explains our existence would then be too simple, since we are rational creatures who are able to "objectively" analyze our environment. We would have no other option but to conclude that some god exists and is responsible for our existence. If a god exists, then there must be a reason for our existence, and if we are firmly aware of his existence, our actions will be then to appease him. With the current state of things (evolution is pretty much a scientific fact), one must disregard the erroneous recorded religious scriptures that explain our and other species' appearance on Earth in order to believe in a god. To believe in a god is to assume that our reality has a "subjective" aspect and is not the whole of the true reality. This response is just me playing devil's advocate.

 

[buffordboy23]

I don't have an issue with people believing God utilized evolution for creation, but it does seem somewhat contradictory, as God himself would have to "evolve." Complex things only come into existence through gradual evolution, and God would have to be even more complex than that which he created, so it would only make sense that he too was created somehow. It leads to a regress, and I think the answer lies in whether or not one subscribes to NOMA.

Your using your "objective" knowledge of the evolution of life in our reality to make your argument that god must also evolve. However, what says that a god must answer to the same laws of nature (as in our universe) as us? Perhaps, our universe is a simplistic case of a more interesting and textured reality.

I have no clue what NOMA is. Please explain.

 

[buffordboy23]

I think that's being a bit harsh. It seems reasonable that a person who believes in God should also believe in evolution (99% of christians do)

Really. Where is source for such an astounding statistic?

 

[Phrak]

You are all very misimformed, I'm afraid to say.

God created the physical Universe next Tuesday at 42 minutes past midnight with all the bits and pieces in place, as if it had been going on for a very, very long time. Everything before this is simply illusion.

Notably, this slight of hand, left the dinosaurs--the philosophers of their time--very much upset with their assigned status.

 

[ConradDJ]

Moridin, it may seem impossible to you to both be a Chrisian and believe in evolution, but there are many people who do. A lot of people have used evolution to support their faith - existentialist theologians Paul Tillich and Martin Buber, Tielhard de Chardin and the advocates of Process Theology. I think they would certainly disagree with your statement that a Christian can't believe in evolution. There are many, many scientists who are practicing Christians, John Polkinghorne being one of the most vocal.

Hi -- I attended a lecture at a local church a few years ago by Kenneth Miller -- very entertaining. He's a devout Christian and an uncompromising evolutionary scientist. As was Darwin, of course.

Miller's main point is that Christianity is much more compatible with Darwinian evolution than it is with the idea that God made the world and defined everything in it, once and for all. In a Darwinian world, we all participate in creation, defining the world's future. And without that sense of being an active participant, he suggests there would be little meaning to the Christian message.

That makes sense to me, and probably to most educated Christians. I'm sure it's not 99%, but a lot of people in the world understand that the point of science is to give us an accurate factual picture of the world, and that the point of religion is something different, giving us a sense of how to live with each other in the world. Two distinct and important problems.

Here's Miller's book:

http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/"

It's very sad, but deeply rooted in tradition, that so many religious advocates insist on their particular religion as a superior kind of science.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin, it may seem impossible to you to both be a Chrisian and believe in evolution, but there are many people who do. A lot of people have used evolution to support their faith - existentialist theologians Paul Tillich and Martin Buber, Tielhard de Chardin and the advocates of Process Theology. I think they would certainly disagree with your statement that a Christian can't believe in evolution. There are many, many scientists who are practicing Christians, John Polkinghorne being one of the most vocal.

They indeed claim to accept evolution, but they do not accept the full implications of evolution, or does accept it, but compartmentalize. Other scientists include Ken Miller and Francis Collins.

 

[madness]

Which implications of evolution do they not accept? In what sense do they compartmentalise? I don't see that there are any implications of evolution which a theist couldn't accept. Clearly there are problems for a biblical literalist, but then there are surely problems here coming from all kinds of modern changes in thought.

 

[Moridin]

Which implications of evolution do they not accept? In what sense do they compartmentalise? I don't see that there are any implications of evolution which a theist couldn't accept. Clearly there are problems for a biblical literalist, but then there are surely problems here coming from all kinds of modern changes in thought.

The following is a list of implications of evolution that cannot be accepted within the mainstream Christian framework. Human beings are not special, not at the top or center of creation, but just one of billions of species in the world. This is in stark contrast to the mainstream Christian position of humans as being the pinnacle of creation. Evolution is without purpose, mutations does not happen with any specific future in mind and if we replay the tape of the history of life, it is not at all a given that humans would appear on the scene. Modern humans have existed for around 0,003% of the history of life, around 0.001% of the history of the universe as we know it. There are probably more black holes in the universe than humans and they have existed much longer than us. Evolution also implies that our minds is just our brains, that too a product of evolution. This means no ghost in the machine, no libertarian free will, religion/theism as a cultural construct.

So to sum up, modern evolutionary biology is incompatible with

- human beings as special, there was no intent behind our arrival at the scene.
- theistic mind/brain dualism
- libertarian free will
- religion/theism as being anything more than a social construction

A typical liberal Christian would start to make various forms of special pleading or invoke intelligent design creationism.

 

[madness]

1) Evolution does not tell us that humans are not special. Most people still consider humans as special in the animal kingdom due to our higher intelligence, self awareness etc. We are the only animals that ask questions about the meaning of our existence. This is a point of view held by many scientists.
2) Mind brain dualism hasn't been affected by evolution. It is true that there was a shift of many people towards materialism as science developed but after the advent of quantum theory many famous physicists rejected the materialistic view.
3) Libertarian freewill has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with determinism.
4) Evolution does not imply that religion can only be a social construction, that's the whole point of this debate.

 

[drankin]

The physical universe as observed scientifically really does not allow for a diety of any religion. The Judeo-Christian diety as described in the bible resides outside of the physical universe and is not subject to it's laws. The diety is described as having no beginning and no end but having created the universe and able to alter it at will. There is no scientific way of observing this and is naturally rejected by the scientific community because of this. The theory of evolution is an excellent conclusion describing the origin of species in the physical universe and should not be rejected by the religious community. IMO it does not have to conflict with Judeo-Christian theology. It pains me to watch the religious community try to make their theology fit into scientific analysis. It simply doesn't work. The basis of their faith should not and cannot be based physical analysis. If it did the "faith" aspect of their respective religion would be moot. And in that case you do not really have a faith at all.

 

[Moridin]

1) Evolution does not tell us that humans are not special. Most people still consider humans as special in the animal kingdom due to our higher intelligence, self awareness etc. We are the only animals that ask questions about the meaning of our existence. This is a point of view held by many scientists.
2) Mind brain dualism hasn't been affected by evolution. It is true that there was a shift of many people towards materialism as science developed but after the advent of quantum theory many famous physicists rejected the materialistic view.
3) Libertarian freewill has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with determinism.
4) Evolution does not imply that religion can only be a social construction, that's the whole point of this debate.

1. Yes, evolution explicitly implies that humans are not special, but just one species among billions. There are many other animals that have a high intelligence and claiming that humans are the only animal to ask questions about the world is just anthropocentric because you cannot rule this out.
2. Quantum mechanics is a materialist perspective and does not suggest mind/brain dualism. In fact, you are confusing two levels of analysis. Quantum mechanics has no influence on human behavior.
3. Yes it does. Evolution implies that our behavior is caused by who we are and our surroundings, rather than a magical ghost.
4. Yes, evolution implies that all forms of culture, including religion, is a social construction.

 

[madness]

Your responses have simply been "no it doesn't" or "yes it does" without any justification. If you can provide an example of any other animal who has literature, philosophy, religion or science then I can accept that humans are not special. Many of the leading quantum physicists claimed that quantum physics has discredited the materialistic view (John Wheeler and Erwin Schroedinger for example). In 3) you are saying a belief in evolution is incompatible with a belief in freewill? I think many scientists would disagree. It is true that religion may have evolved with evolution (you're argument in 4) but that is the whole point in theistic evolution.

 

[Moridin]

The reason that my responses have been short is because your "responses" consists of nothing but "some people would disagree with that". Provide arguments, or admit defeat.

Evolution dethrones humans as special. Other animals have culture as well, just check out birds and other apes, for instance. You claim quantum mechanics have refuted materialism, yet quantum mechanics contain no supernatural entities or implications at all, which makes your position contradictory. Yes, evolution implies that our cognitive machinery is a product of evolution and that who we are is a product of our cognitive machinery, rather than a magical ghost. Furthermore, since we have a natural explanation for religion, this means that the claims of supernatural origin religion makes is superfluous and unnecessary.

The incompatibility between evolution and theism holds.

This is one of the reasons I detest arguing with religious people -- they start with their ideology (in your case the belief that evolution is compatible with theism) and then reject without justification any evidence to the contrary.

 

[robertm]

Biology rips the warm gushy meaning, out of the non-existent soul.

 

[madness]

First of all I'm not religious, I'm coming from a physics background. I'm not claiming that quantum mechanics invokes supernatural forces, but rather that it invokes the need for a conscious observer. Materialists deny the existence of consciousness. This is besides the point anyway, we are talking about evolution here.
Evolution did not dethrone humans as special, we are still the only animals on Earth capable of asking questions such as whether God exists.
We have no natural explanation for our existence, the best we know is that the universe appeared out of nowhere 14 billion years ago. One explanation of why our universe exists at all is to invoke a creator, and the fact that evolution occurs adds nothing for or against this point of view.
Yes we are a product of our cognitive machinery, and our cognitive machinery came about through evolution, so what? This fact is true in secular evolution and theistic evolution.

You too start with your ideology (the belief that evolution is incompatible with theism) and reject without justification any evidence to the contrary.