It is apparently possible, for many people do it, or at least claim to. I think that it sets one up to live with any number of logical inconsistencies, and if one claims to believe the Bible, Biblical inconsistiencies as well. The evolution theory, as best I can tell, exists to explain our existence without reference to God. Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker" said that evolution makes it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." The position you ask about is called "theistic evolution" usually. Here is one article on the problems with this position from Answers in Genesis: http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/god_evolution.asp

That easy. Ones a fairy tail or is that tale, The other takes education. That takes effort. Or you can take the easy way out and ask silly questions on the interned and expect some bozo like me to give you an answer

People are capable of believing all kinds of things. This is very similar to a couple of other questions. Parts 1 and 2 of evolution theory described in this answer http://www.answerbag.com/a_view.php/21194 are entirely consistent with most concepts of Creationism. This answer lists several possible ways of combining aspects of the two http://www.answerbag.com/a_view.php/27549

The two are not mutually exclusive. One could argue that the creationist theory caused evolution. Evolution can exist if your view of God made it so.

Yes, we can believe in both creationism and evolution. In fact we all regularly hold contradictory beliefs, it is part of being human. Faith and other dogma based thought is processed in a different part of the brain than scientific and other analectic thought. General observation reveals that virtually all mentally sound people no matter how religious or scientific freely switches between the two types of thought WITHOUT DISTURBING THE OTHER. Very recent brain studies have shown two distinctive areas of the brain that are "activated" when solving problems with previously held beliefs vs. analytic processes. A non-religious and non-science example of this idea is found in entertainment. You chose; a soap opera or "professional wrestling" Neither of these would be much fun if we did not "suspend" our analytic mind while we were watching them because they do not actually match our everyday experience and watched analytically they would both be more like slap-stick comedy. On the other hand, as soon as they are over we switch back to our other belief system and we do not body-slam our next antagonist nor expect to have a torrid love affair with our best friends spouse anytime soon. Yet, somewhere we hold the storyline intact and a day later call that reality back for another hour. Consistency of belief or thought is a myth equally shared by the faithful and heathen alike. Scottie

Neo-Darwinism is inherently atheistic, (although Darwin was not) because it specifically claims, based not on evidence, but upon certain of Darwin's words, that the process of evolution is driven by RANDOM mutations. It is impossible for all mutations to be tried, so if the directions of evolution are truly randomly, then there is either no God, or else he has no concern whatever for his creation. However there is nothing about Creationism that contradicts the general idea of evolution. To the contrary, the idea of creating man out of nothing is contradicted by the Bible, which says that God "formed man out of the dust of the earth"... which, on a long time scale, is completely compatible with evolutionary theories.

Yes. You can believe God set the universe up to unfold through the big bang and evolution. He's friggin omnipotent. This is what I think God did. That some people use the big bang and evolution to rule God out is inadvertent.

In my thinking no. A theory is just that, a theory. Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on a random set of events occurring with just the right timing, along with other random sets of events under the correct environment. Grass and trees needed to evolve before animals and birds to provide food, shelter and a living environment. If one of these pieces of the jigsaw puzzle occurred out of order, then the total chain of events that evolution started, would be lost. Having that same set of random circumstances, occur twice, or more than twice would in my mind be impossible. The story of the time traveler stepping on a butterfly is as classic example. If one believes in the Bible, it clearly states that the Lord created the Heavens and the Earth, and every living thing on the Earth. Now this does not mean that the Lord didn't create dinosaurs, it only means that some of the creatures he created are no longer alive. Extinction is a natural part of life. If you read further into the Bible, once Adam and Eve where sent from the Garden of Eden, everything around them, including themselves, started dying.Whether dinosaurs where killed off via a volcanic explosion, drowned in Noahs's flood or died of lung cancer from smoking, it sounds more plausible in my eyes.

One is based on scientific facts and is accepted by most academics of the world.So the mind understands this to be true.Now you introduce creationism that is not based on facts.When any form of interpretation is introduced,as with the bible,then reality is based loosly on opinion.I am 55 and was brought up on evolutionism,and logic tells me that it makes sense.If science proves that the world is 10's of millions of years old ,backed by scientific proof,then creationism teaches that the world is around 6000 years old,backed by many interputations,whom do you believe.So I don't think you can believe in both.

There is a way--viruses and bacteria don't really act like the much bigger organism--though I know someone will bitch that I said this.

It hurts my brain to have to pick through the points in your original post, but I believe the key nodes to your argument are" "In answering this, it needs to be both - recognized and acknowledged that "kinds" of organism [or species] cannot simply defy the Higher overall laws of nature itself, simply to accent a differentiation of species. That is the number 1 rule of comparative science." and "There, after satisfying the natural laws of nature and of effective and satisfactory existence itself, their 'similarities' completely end! Thereafter, they are total opposites in everything – in terms of all differentiation among the beasts that exist." The first I don't recognise (as in I haven't seen it before, not that I don't agree with it.) and the second appears to be an assertion which we have both disagreed with. As you are a Specialist Anatomist and Kinesiologist who is an expert on snakes and a Biblical scholoar, I can see that you have an interest in the differences between aspects of 'the natures' of snakes and people. However, your argument makes as much logical sense to me as an assertion that the days of the week coming around every seven days is proof of some conspiracy because red is the opposite of three.

I know people who do, and, although I disagree with them, nor do I exclude them from the kingdom of heaven because they do. I will leave the teaching up to God when we get before Him and I am confident that it will all fall together on that day. What I do resent is people insinuating that to believe in creationism makes you a cretin. One answerer here said that evolution was "accepted by the most educated people of the world." What makes someone "amongst the most educated"? According to Jeopardy, on which I was a contestant, I am in the top 4% of the world's educated and intelligent. My IQ backs that up, and so does my educational level. And I do not believe in evolution (reasons for which are too long to go into here, plus I have gone through it before ad nauseum). Neither do many people I know who have so many letters after their name that they do not fit on one line (my husband amongst them). I even know PHDs in Science who do not believe in evolution, and attended a lecture by one once. He was not a Christian, or, indeed, even a believer of any sort. He described himself as agnostic. He confidently said he was not alone in the scientific field. Believing in creation does not mean believing the world is 6000 years old. Nor does it mean that you are among the less educated people in the world.

I do. On my way to church right now, where Creationism is obviously agreed upon. However, there is something to evolution that even the religious world can't deny. Pope John Paul II even admitted that much. It's kind of like the old Munster's vs. Addams Family or Bewitched vs. I Dream of Jeanie. Always assumed if you like one, you can't the other. I do believe in Creationism, and also evolution -- though maybe not to a Darwin point. Still, something's there, though we will never know for sure...