One Can Accept Evolution as True While Simultaneously Believing in a Deity or Higher Power (God)

Resolved: It is possible to acknowledge the scientific findings regarding the origins of mankind as true and legitimate and accept the theory of evolution as the most plausible explanation of humanity's origin while still maintaining a belief in a supernatural creator or being, commonly referred to as a "God" or "gods." While I will be arguing the affirmative, my opponent will share the burden of proof as they must prove that the above scenario is NOT possible- that is, they must prove, without a doubt, that either a.) the theory of evolution's validity completely rules out the possibility of a God or gods, or b.) accepting the existence of a God or gods completely rules out the possibility of the theory of evolution being true and legitimate. The debate over whether or not a God or gods exist has been occurring since the dawn of mankind, with a significant shift towards the negative over time. This is largely due to the influence of a book entitled "On the Origin of Species." Written by English scientist Charles Darwin in 1859, the book is considered to be the foundation of modern evolutionary thought. Many proponents of the theory of evolution claim that it rules out the possibility of a God or gods, but this notion is false. Below are my reasons why I feel that it is possible to acknowledge the scientific findings made by Darwin to be true and legitimate while still maintaining a belief in a God or gods. First of all, it should be noted that Darwin was a scientist, and scientists deal with occurrences in the natural world. The natural world does not include the supernatural world, which describes the field a God or gods would be in should they exist. Therefore, it is impossible for Darwin's findings, or any scientist's findings for that matter, to directly negate the possibility of the existence of a God or gods as scientists do not deal with the hypothetical supernatural world. Second, the process of evolution does not explain the origin of life on Earth- it only explains how life has evolved since that origin. There is another process known as abiogenesis that claims to be the scientific answer to the origin of life, but accepting evolution as truthful does not automatically legitimize abiogenesis as they are two entirely different processes associated with two entirely different events. Third, if a God or gods were to exist, the possibilities would be endless for what they are capable of doing. Since a hypothetical God or gods would be omnipotent, they would be capable of manipulating whatever scientific or natural means necessary in order to create and guide the development of the universe. The Roman Catholic Church, which is one of the oldest and most prominent religious organizations on the planet, teaches that evolution is both a natural and spiritual process, guided by God as a way of influencing the universe. If a person believes in an omnipotent God or gods, then it is very possible that this person could claim that this God or gods influenced the process of evolution, thus accepting the validity of both principles. This certainly does not mean that evolution requires a God or gods, or that a God or gods require evolution, but that's not what I am arguing in favor of: rather, I am arguing for the mere possibility that one could accept both simultaneously. In summation, acceptance of the theory of evolution as true and legitimate does not automatically rule out the possibility of the existence of a God or gods. This is because evolution is a natural process and thus completely separated from the supernatural world which neither a.) explains how life initially began on planet Earth nor b.) rules out the possibility of supernatural guidance by either a God or gods. In order to prove my argument false, the negative side must prove that the theory of evolution being true and legitimate completely eliminates the possibility of the existence of a God or gods, or vice versa. This can be done from either a religious perspective (claiming that evolution is false while a God or gods exist) or a secular perspective (claiming that evolution is true while a God or gods do not exist) but the burden of proof is the same in both scenarios. While my personal beliefs should not factor into this discussion, I would like to state that I do accept both principles as true, which is why I decided to argue in favor of the possibility that both can be accepted by an individual simultaneously. (Please stick to the topic at hand- we are not debating the legitimacy of either principle, but rather whether or not the two principles can be accepted simultaneously.)