The belief in evolution is not always a belief in atheism

My opponent states that "[a]theism is the position that deities do not exist,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]" This statement is similar to saying "Crime is the taking of life or the damaging of property. In the broadest sense, crime is proscribed antisocial behavior." My opponent has posited a disjunctive definition of atheism, as I have of crime. In my definition either an act damaging property OR an act taking life would amount to a crime. In my opponent's definition, either the position that deities do not exist OR the rejection of theism will amount to atheism. Theism within the confines of Wikipedia, the source my opponent relies on, is stated to be "in the broadest sense [...] the belief in at least one deity. [...] In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[...]Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." See http://en.wikipedia.org...... Once again, Wikipedia provides multiple meanings for the same word. As my opponent has provided only one definition, that of atheism, I am free to define theism as the more specific use of that word. Namely that theism "conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." Because atheism may mean the rejection of theism, by means of simple substitution, atheism may be understood to mean "rejection of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe." I believe an argument can be made that evolution is, in fact, atheism, under this definition. According to the definition provided by my opponent, "evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though the changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms. This process can culminate in the emergence of new species.[...] Indeed, the similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence." Note the language used in this definition. Within this framework of evolution, speciation CAN occur. Not may, or could, but CAN. New organisms CAN come into existence without divine intervention. This definition therefore rejects the act of creation as the exclusive domain of the almighty. Rejection of God's participation in any part of the process of creation amounts to the rejection of God as personal AND active in the governance AND organization of the world, even if only to a limited degree. Because my opponent posits a belief that creation can occur apart from God's involvement,even if it must not, my opponent rejects the necessity of God as as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The belief that God need not create for creation to occur is therefore atheism because it posits that God could be inactive in the organization of the universe. My opponent may try to argue that it is 'atheistic' and not 'atheism,' as the difference between a noun suitable for substitution and an adjective that is merely descriptive. He would argue this because he might claim that atheism is a belief where as evolution is a conceptual model for understanding the natural world, and that a conceptual model can thus spring from the belief and the belief would merely be descriptive of it. However, one must remember that evolution is a belief, according to Wikipedia, because "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." http://en.wikipedia.org...... In the Wikipedia article from which my opponent argues, evolution is considered to be true. The article even begins by stating that evolution IS change in the genetic material of a population of organisms. It does not state that evolution is ASSUMED to be such change. Because the definition my opponent provides does not accept the possibility of falsification, evolution, within the context of this debate, is a belief. That belief is atheism.