It is true, of course, that god and evolution can coexist. If god is a creator, then evolution provides a fascinating glimpse into how “His” creation was achieved. That species evolve because of a divine mandate is no more unacceptable to faith than that the human fetus “evolves” through several differing forms because of a divine mandate. Or how an oak tree develops from a small acorn into a huge tree. Either these kind of things happen via divine mandate or they do not. IF they DO, then nothing changes about the physical processes involved. It’s only that now, based on scientific research, believers have a handle on the “methodology” that the creator used to create.
But the argument as currently phrased and debated is still unnecessarily confined to (the mostly Western) prejudice that god is necessarily a creator. My own god definition excludes the idea of god as a creator. Remove the notion that god is a creator and the discussion is radically transformed. A non-creating god can no longer be blamed or praised for responsibility for creation’s goods and its ills.
The non-creating deity is a truly transcosmic being that cannot be adequately described by any materially-based imagery; analogy and metaphor take the discussion only part of the way. The rest is Mystery. The non-creating god is neither all powerful or non-powerful, since “power” is a crude physical-universe concept, inapplicable to the issue of a non-physical transcendent non-creating god. Saying that evolution and the universe at large do not require a creating deity is not to say that god is unreal. Rather, it is to say that the non-creating god concept/definition is not dependent on the world’s existence and/or its functions, and that the world’s existence and its functions are independent of the question of god’s reality.
Evolution is real. But, in lieu of a creating deity, evolution remains merely a physical-universe phenomenon, unconnected to the question of god’s reality.