[freepertoo]

Yes they are mutually exclusive, sorry.

[Tomax]

Why? Is not the creation of Eve from Adam's side a simplified explanation of A sexual mitosis regeneration of one celled organisms? How else would God explain such things to primitive goat herders?

[Brilliant]

Are you suggesting that if God wanted to use evolution to create man, he could not have done so?

[Paradox]

No, they are not, sorry sorry. Now, belief in Genesis and belief in Evolotion are indeed mutually exclusive.

[jb6]

Only if you are a protestant fundamentalist. The Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran churches all accept Evolution. So tell me, why an all powerful, creator God is incapable of creating evolution? Read St. Augustine's writings where he advises that the first parts of Genesis should be taken as allegory not a word for word fact.

[verity]

You were raised by wolves?

[The_Reader_David]

I would suggest you read Alexander Kalomiros' "The Six Dawns" before you get much older. It gives a masterful exposition of Genesis as read by the notables in the generation of Christians alive at the time when the Christian canon was fixed, and shows it to be in remarkable accord with the modern scientific account of cosmology, biological diversity, and (even) human origins.

I would also point out as I am often at pains to point out on creation/evolution threads that the purported incompatibility between evolution and theism (an incompabibility believed by folks on both sides--creationists argue that Genesis is true and therefore Darwin is false, while Dawkins and other militantly atheistic evolutionists argue that the truth of the neo-Darwinian synthesis implies the truth of atheism) is based on an error.

It is not the case that a stochastically modelled phenomenon is void of intent. The best models of futures markets (Black-Scholes) are given by stochastic differential equations, yet no one suggests that futures markets are not set up by intentional actors, nor that their dynamics are not the result of intentional actions (by traders). Bizarrely, though, it seems universally assumed that if our best model of biological diversity involves a stochastic element, this implies that the existence of life and its dynamics are void of intent ("we're here by mere chance" or some other nonsense).

Similarly, certain metallugic processes (annealing and hardening) are the result of thermal (and thus really random, not just stochastically modelled) phenomena, yet well-hardened or well-annealed metal is assumed by archaeologists to be the result of intentional action.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the truth of Genesis (allowing for the fact that in the first instance it was directed to cultures very different from our own, and thus should not be read as a scientific treatise, but as a prelude to the Torah, and, for Christians, ultimately a prelude to the Incarnation), and a stochastic model of biological dyanmics are incompatible.

(Personally I think that the neo-Darwinian synthesis falls short on a number of points, but for reasons related to my own hyper-Popperian view of science, not for theological reasons.)