Homo sapiens ( modern humans ) evolved from other primate species, and homo sapiens as a species like all other life forms, continue to evolve.
Biological evolution and belief in a Creator deity do not need to conflict however, no form of theism is a part of scientific method is utilized in the discussioin of evolution and Biology.As long as there is reproduction with exchange of genetic material evolution happens. It happens to all living species. Evolution is how new species arrive, however, not all evolutionary changes lead to speciation and not all evolutionary changes are even beneficial. Some changes lead to extinction for a species. Some changes are advantageous for survival potential, many are benign, some harmful.
Intelligent Design, Creationism, whatever euphemisms anyone wishes to name the Genesis story of creation in attempt to interject religious dogma into public schools under the guise of science, simply does not work as science. This is why it has failed and shall continue to fail in any court of law to redefine Creationism or “Intelligent Design” as a science. Religious dogma cannot be considered an “alternative” to a scientific theory. Scientific Method is what determines if something is science or not. The theory of evolution is as true as germ theory, gravitational theory, and other theories of physics and math that enabled you to type this question onto a computer created through application of theories of math and physics. If one does not understand the definitions of the terms, or gives incorrect definitions and then finds fault with their own incorrect statements, this does not support claiming flaws in the theory. As I saw in a recent letter to a newspaper when a Creationism proponent gave his understanding of evolution to mean something that contradicts the scientific definition of evolutionary theory in several ways as, “A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually better or complex form”.
Perhaps some of his misunderstanding arises from using a definition that only applies to the common vernacular use of the word evolve as one would apply it to a conversation, or a story plot. However, that definition has no application in scientific terminology or to evolution as used with regard to biological processes. Evolution does NOT imply advancement or increasing complexity, nor to any direction when referring to the theory of evolution. Some evolutionary changes become more “complex”, others do not. Not all evolutionary changes lead to speciation. Most do not. Some changes are beneficial for survival potential, most changes are actually benign, and some lead to disadvantages in survival potential and eventually to "evolutionary dead ends" for the species.
A simple definition of evolutionary theory is the changes over time in the genetic constitution of species. Evolutionary theory explains how species change, and how new species appear.
Scientific method is the best method yet devised by the human mind to determine if something is real or not. This is why theories change when new evidence comes into play. That is what makes it SCIENCE. Creationism/Intelligent Design is religious dogma. It cannot be tested, it cannot be changed, and to do so is heresy. It is religion.
Religion is belief in a deity or deities, with dogma. Religion is a method to seek meaning beyond our mere mortal life existence, find connections on a spiritual level, and to fulfill a sense of purpose of existence. Science is a method of seeking knowledge of how the universe works and steps to test every new idea to see if it fits with observable and testable reality. One may seek and find knowledge by using both in their life. I do and I understand their differences and their limitations to connect to one another.
Theory isn't a guess in scientific method. Evolution is a cornerstone to understanding modern biology and medicine. As long as there is reproduction with exchange of genetic material, evolution happens. It doesn't require "believing in" but accepting the observed and tested reality. There has been absolutely NO debate in scientific circles over the reality of evolution for more than 70 years. What IS debated in Biology are the intricate details of the many processes involved in evolution. We know more about how evolution works than we do about GRAVITY. This "debate" between fundamentalist literalists and the scientific and medical community is NO different from the early medieval church condemning astronomers who put forth the notions of a heliocentric solar system.
I do not debate the now known fact of the solar system being heliocentric, nor do I debate the existence of germ theory as a means of spreading disease, or the existence of gravitational theory as a reality. I also do not debate the fact that as long as there is reproduction with exchange of genetic material in life forms, evolution happens. As long as life on earth exists, evolutionary theory is a fact.
I do not believe in evolution. It doesn't require faith but accepting the observed and tested reality.
Biology shows us that rather than life appearing on the planet *poof* in six literal days, as long as life exists, creation continues! As long as reproduction with exchange of genetic material happens, evolution happens. That is reality.
Biology does not support or negate a Creator.
Yet the same Torah that the Genesis creation story came out of is the same Torah those fundamentalist literalists reject in their commandments for Israel from God! They will argue viciously for the creation story to be taken as literal ,but just as adamantly argue that the commandments God gave Israel in the Torah that are repeated and stressed to be eternal, and that the covenant God declares a dozen times to be eternal, was "done away with" or "nailed to the cross". They've no problem ignoring that God said God doesn't become a man, and that no man becomes a god, or dismissing that God told Moses no one can take on the sin of another, but if you say that all life didn't appear on the planet as it is today in six literal days you're rejecting God. They will also insist that a literal belief in the creation story( from that text they argue has been superceded ) should be given a stauts of scientific theory or an “alternative” in a science class when it doesn’t fit scientific method. Religious dogma has no place in a science class.
Because a self-concept is often very strong, and they cannot reconcile the irreconcilable, they must resort to justify their belief with lies.
It really is NOT faith in a Creator/Creative force/God that is *threatened* in understanding biological processes of evolution, but in the fundamentalist literalist it is their SELF-CONCEPT that is threatened! I tested this over many years online. It is very rare when any "Creationist" would say YES to the following Yes or NO only simple question.
Are you an animal?
Most people will of course, say YES. Sometimes they will qualify it that our soul or spirit is different or that we have greater or different abilities, etc. But by definition, we are still animals. Almost all Creationists will give a knee jerk reaction that NO, we are human, and consider the term animal to be degrading.
When the very rare Creationist said "yes", it was ALWAYS with the qualifier that we are *above* and separate from all other animals. Well that changed the question a bit, but at least in a few, they recognized they were animals.
Our psyche is a wondrous thing. If our self-concept is threatened, the self-protective mechanism of denial kicks in to prohibit the shattering of self to be replaced by one that is unacceptable to them. That explains why they simply cannot see the literal mountains of observable, tested, verified, physical evidence that is SO VERY PLAIN to see to those whose self-concept is NOT threatened to know that they too are an animal affected by the same biological processes affecting all life. They are unable to consciously process things that would replace their self-concept with one that is degrading to them. Many of them are completely revolted by the notion that they are an animal. There is nothing inherently degrading about acceptance of our biological, mortal, physical self. Our very thoughts are electro-chemical processes. That I **believe** that an Omnipotent Creator set every process at work in the universe in place. That isn't my place in a science course to try to teach that. It makes no difference if one is atheist or theist in a science classroom; objective data reveals evolutionary processes and they are utilized daily in modern medicine.
If you sincerely want to know how evolution works, stop getting your information from clergy and start getting it from a study of biology.
I believe in God, that is my faith at work. I accept the reality of evolution. Faith is not involved in that.
I do not "believe in" evolution any more than I "believe in" germ theory. I know both theories explain facts of biological processes.
The Episcopal General Convention, the Unitarian-Universalist Association, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A, the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, the United Methodist Church, and the American Jewish Congress all have position statements speaking out against creationism posing as scientific method. "Intelligent Design" is a euphemism for creationism.
I am no more an "evolutionist" for accepting the reality of evolutionary process than I am a gravitationalist for accepting the reality of gravity, or a germist for accepting the reality of germ theory