Contemporary, sophisticated theism has finally come to accept the premise of evolution. Of course, this was a choice it made kicking and screaming, contesting all the way (which shows the inability of theism to evolve proficiently).
Let us suppose that the theist is right; let us presume that evolution requires a creator to set the whole show in process. The next question becomes, what can we know about this being or beings? Indeed, let us go further, let us simply grant the premise of monotheism to the desperate theist. Now the question becomes; what kind of a creator is the creator of evolution? Is this the kind of God any self-respecting theist would truly want? Can such a God be said to be involved in the process of the universe? Is such a God truly personal? Can the premise of evolution tell us whether such a God is even still alive? Indeed, it would seem the only conclusion, that could legitimately be reached by theism (if we presume the existence of God from evolution), would be the idea that some entity or entities, beyond Nature, must be responsible for Nature. But one could know nothing beyond this!
Let us presume that the creator of evolution is still alive, but what kind of God is he; would it be illogical to presume that he is still evolving himself? Indeed, what could possibly negate this premise seeing God himself (as from the argument of the theist) is deduced from Nature?
On this logic could we even draw a meaningful distinction between God and Nature? Even if we grant the premise we see that theism ultimately dies the death. For one cannot have it both ways; if justification is produced on the basis of Nature then it shall be very hard for the theist to distinguish God from Nature. And yet he means a very specific thing when he says he believes in God! But does he mean the God we can deduce from the process of Nature?
If evolution shall be the premise; if evolution is made the axiom of God; if it is used as an analogy for the existence of God, then we can only conclude that God is in process the same way that Nature is in process. But is this what we hear from the mighty theologians who accept evolution? Most certainly not, for they are altogether inconsistent and refuse to give up the attributes of their deity.
It is simply ignorant (or dishonest) to proclaim the justification of revelatory forms of theism, when one's argument is not specific to those forms of theism. If the theologian will attempt to deduce a God from reason on the basis of Nature, then he must abide by the conclusions of Nature (as Nature is the premise of his argument).
But of course, all this begs the question... as I have said so many times before, why not keep the things of Nature to Nature and the things of God to God?
The truth is that provoking Nature (or evolution) in defense of the existence of God, is catastrophic to the theologian's concept of God. If evolution is the axiom of the existence of God, then we have no reason to presume that God is not himself in process. And what this says about the nature of God (insofar as the theologian claims that the nature of God dictates the nature of reality) is that meaning is an evolutionary process... is that the idea of God we have today will not be as true as the idea of God we have tomorrow... because today's God is inferior to the God of tomorrow.
Overall this is really an affirmation of Naturalism, even as the acceptance of evolution presupposes the authority of Naturalism above that of theism. To examine these worldviews in reverse is not to find that Naturalism has succumbed to theism, but that theism has had no choice but to submit to the authority of Naturalism.
A God of evolution is first and foremost subservient to the premise of evolution. That is to say, the real proposition is that evolution has authority over any counter notion of God! God must be informed and conditioned by evolution and not the other way around; for where can it be said that evolution is conditioned by a concept of God? We know we are reaching the end of an era of theism when theism has no other choice but to conform to principles it previously repudiated in the name of God.