The following is a based on the purely hypothetical assumption that some ancient texts are at least partially acurate acounts. . .

Evolution is not the proof against the possibility of a Deity's existence.

One may or may not have other reasons to suppose a deity exists. However, evolution cannot be this reason. If the concept of "the perpetuance of system lineages through altered reproductions" is supposed, by one, to be at work in the universe, at most, it could only eliminate the possibility of a particular deity, with the role ascribed to that deity.

Evolution then, is only a possible proof that a deity is not responsible for the appearence of "life".

Many scholars have reason to believe that many ancient texts, including Sumarian and Jewish texts, origionated from common sources. Through research into the evolution of these texts (no pun intended:), they have found that the origional Biblical "create" was most likely the Hebrew word for "organize". In the 1800's, with a boom in particle physics, many thought this was proof that God did not create but organized that which could not be created. Later, physics allowed for matter to change and be formed out of fields. Much of the Christian world, loving that slate of hand they showed the scientific community, have been unwilling to change again and addmit the first change wasn't divinely inspired. They also seem to be afraid of what they might find with further research into the etymology of the Bible.

Of these ancient texts, some state that this "organizing" was done "naturally". It gets even stranger. In these texts, "naturally" inherently meant, as it does now, "not outside of nature". In other words, no being, supernatural or otherwise, caused something that happened "naturally". The event happened on its own. This concept, that life is a natural, "uncaused" occurrence, sounds exactly like modern science's "evolution".

This takes us to an interesting change of possibilities. In Sumarian "creation" stories, the "creaters" are assumed to have created man. The "gods" explain how humans and several other human-like creatures were "formed" from the mud. Some of these weren't successful, while others, such as monkeys and humans, were. The Sumarian "gods" are never assumed to have created the rest of life, though. What is even more suspect is the fact that these "gods" never seem to behave as if they are humanity's maker, let alone its caretaker. Are the "gods" just being inconsistent, or were the Sumarians errantly assuming the "gods" organized the mud.

If one assumes the latter assumption is correct, then who are these "gods" who told these ancient peoples about the evolution of life? Are they supernatural? If not, are there "gods" out there, supernatural or not, who care about the human species? Sumarian texts, including "The Epic of Gilgamesh", seem to make references to a second group of "gods", who didn't come from other planets or teach humans science. In fact, these other "gods" usually answer those types of questions with metaphors concerning emotion and ethical conduct. Are these the "gods" of the Jews and the Christians? If Jesus was divine and divine beings were responsible for life, why didn't he spend more time talking about his great acheivement? Why wasn't he "observing" mankind like the "creator" Sumarian Gods? Even more importantly, why wasn't he bragging about to his creation? Perhaps no one had created the organic of man. Maybe the great achievement for these other, good "gods" was still yet to come.