That would depend on if you can handle the word metaphor or not.

Certainly, and all sorts of religious people do it every day.

Its the fundamentalist fanatics, who believe that any view but their own is Hell-Bound, who can't reconcile the two. Of course, that's just one of several hundred things they can't reconcile.

That tends to be the nature of fanatics.....

Certainly, so long as one side is willing to concede that he is wrong and the other guy is right.

YES

Of course, it is. Both evolution, based on fact, and religion, based on faith, were created by God, and ultimately, there can be no conflict at least when it comes to faith versus truth. As St. Thomas Aquinas and other learned doctors of the Church have stated, faith must yield to truth. Otherwise, Christians could never have accepted the science that has arisen since the Bible was finally compiled in the 6th Century A.D.

It is perfectly permissible to believe that evolution is God's way of introducing life into the world. The fundamentalists have painted themselves into a theological corner on this issue, and they make themselves and Christianity appear ignorant. 

This list item asks if it is possible to reconcile evolution and religion. Not to be a smart-ass, but it really depends on the religion. Many Hindu's, Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and Christians do not believe in evolution. Conversly, many Hindu's, Buddhists, Siks, Muslims, etc. do accept evolution.
Since this list item is on Xn issues, however, I think it is safe to assume Genghis meant reconcile evolution and Christianity. The message of Jesus is that his death and ressurection paid for the sins of mankind. I can't imagine he cared much for the scientific beliefs of his followers. But then, I also try to refrain from second guessing deities. If evolution is true, then there was no literal fall from grace, no Adam and Eve, no Eden, and no reason to question this far-fetched notion of sin. If Genesis is literal, then at one point in history, there were no carnivores. The entire world was vegetarian ( I particularly enjoy this theory ;) ) and it did not ever rain until the famous flood.
I do not see why anyone should get uptight about evolution. I tend to believe science, but I also recognize that everything scientist held with such fist to the chest conviction has at one point been proven wrong. (for instance, hit disagree if you still believe that trees give birth to birds) It is hubris to think that everything we believe now will be right 100, 200 or even 800 years from now.
I also think that some (not all) Christians need to lighten up, science and religion do not have to be at odds. If God created everything, then it only stands to reason that he created science.
Personally, I believe in adaptation. I have a many problems with evolution; the Cambrian explosion and the Miller-Urey experiment immediately come to mind. On the off chance that anybody cares, here is a link that is more in depth:
http://www.rateitall.com/r-3893157.aspx


I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that healthy skeptism is essential to good science and good religion

Of course it is. The Bible isn't a science book, and was never intended to be. If you're using the Bible as a science text, there's a pretty good chance you're missing it's real message.

Yes, of course they can. I believe "Science" answers the how we are here and "Religion" answers the why we are here. Both are perfectly acceptable and are only tangentially related. The problem usually stirs because people read the book "Genesis" as a book of science. The bible is NOT a book of science and it was written by men with evolving spiritual beliefs. However, when the book does speak of scientific phenomena it is uncannily accurate. One has to remember that these books were written by men inspired by God and thus have the ability to err (meaning the bible is imperfect but nonetheless an important book written for mankind on how to live ones life) and should not be read as an inerrant science textbook.

Surprise, surprise!  A "Funny vote" from a person who is too ignorant to do anything but push the button and not debate! 

Absolutely!!  What a lot of people fail to realize is that the Evolution Theory is broken into two groups ~ Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution.  Creation Scientists believe and accept the theory of Micro evolution.  Micro evolution is, simply put, a shuffling of current genetic information to adapt to changing environmental conditions (ie Cane Toads).  Macro evolution is the theory that animals (or people) can create new and ADDITIONAL genetic information to evolve into a totally different being.  There is ZERO proof that this has EVER happened. And, as someone said, "It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation".  There is not one iota of proof that exists that man or any other mammal EVOLVED from SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.  I guess I will just sit here and wait for someone to disprove what I have said ~ as I know it is coming! 

No. Evolution is men's attempt to explain the existence of the Universe and the origin of life without the need of a Creator. Even as it has failed miserably, it is still sustained and believed (faith) by an ever decreasing number of people who stubbornly reject the notion of a Creator, while more and more scientific evidence is presented by the intellectual world that all things point towards a "force or being" responsible for the existence of all things.

This topic uses two terms or words that I do not care for. First evolution I feel detracts from God being able to miracles. God is by the way... God and he can do all things including creating man with just a breath. The other word, religion, has become a ritual denominational practice. God does not want your religion, he wants you (a relationship with you).

I see evolution and the remainder of the sciences as man's attempt to understand his world apart from God, based solely on what his eyes can see and his hands can touch. It it incorrect, or just one more way for the human mind to come to grips with the wonders around it?

If God created the world and all of the intricacies of it and its beings, then why couldn't have have created species that could evolve? For those who believe in the literal creation of the world in six days...has the Earth changed since then? Yes it has. Its not impossible that God couldn't have created the world according to Christian tradition yet allowed its inhabitants to change with the world.

Evolution is a religion. Evolution and Christianity can't be reconciled because neither one ever had anything to do with the other. You can't reconcile something that never had any bond in the first place.

This question is flawed. If you would have said Christianity or Judaism instead of religion then the question would be more clearly defined, but since you said religion (which etymologically means something that you bind yourself to) then it is not answerable with a yes or no, because evolution is at the very least part of ones religions. Humanism is a religion. The belief that Science is supreme is a religious statement. This is just a bad question. The question of origins is at once a scientific, philosophical, and theological question. How one answers the question is going to determine one's world view. How one views the beginning informs how one sees the present and the future. Let us take the Babylonian creation story called the Enuma Elish from around 1250 BC. In the Beginning, according to the Babylonian myth, Apsu, the father god, and Tiamat, the mother god, give birth to the gods. But the younger gods are so noisy in their playfullness that the older gods decide to kill them so they can get some sleep. The younger gods uncover the plot before the elder gods put it into action, and kill Apsu. His wife Tiamat, the Dragon of Chaos, pledges revenge. Then terrifed by Tiamet, the rebel gods turn for salvation to their youngest member , Marduck. He negotiates and they agree that if he succeeds, he must be given chief and undisputed power in the assembly of the gods. They agree. Marduck then catches Tiamat in a net, drives an evil wind down her throat, shoots an arrow that bursts her distended belly and pierces her heart. He then splits her skull with a club and scatters her blood in out-of-the-way places. He stretches out her corpse full length, and from it creates the cosmos. In this myth creation is an act of violence.
The evolution myth is an act of random chance that things happen, but it believes that creation is the result of explosions of molecules that bump in the anals of space and creation appears by chance. SolenoidDH has pointed out that evolution has to do with survival of the fittest and it does when attatched to the Hegelian scheme and through this one can easily justify racism and violence. The Biblical view of creation has man created in the image of God and creation is seen is good and not evil. In the Biblical world view the beginning is not violence or by chance, but is created with purpose.
The question is not phrased right, because evolution determines ones religion and this is not comparing apples to apples.

Evolution has to do with struggle, survival of the fittest. It also involves chance. The creation story in the Bible is orderly, intelligent, and direct. I don't see how Biblical creation and evolution can be harmonized.

The majority of the world has already tacitly reconciled the two, and evolution comes out the clear victor (only theological absolutists insist upon bracing the gates of these politically-advantageous forts). I find it quite humorous how science and evolutionary biology get everything RIGHT when you want improved corn yields, a new computer, vaccines to eliminate smallpox and this year's strain of flu, drugs to straighten out your erectile dysfunction, the discovery of new oil fields, and anti-lock brakes; but all evil-utionists (using the same scientific methods that everybody takes advantage of all day long) are dead WRONG. Better to teach the young'uns that mystical hoo-doo is every bit as valid in explaining how things got to be the way they are. I've always gotten the sense that fundagelical creationists vehemently deny evolution based upon what has been referred to as the Jenga Principle, where if one brick is knocked out of the feeble structure of faith, the entire building falls into an unsightly (and uninhabitable) heap. Genuine structures can weather a few loosened stones now and again, and come out standing just as strong and resolute as the day they were founded. Historically, religions and their proprietary explanations have arrived and left with an almost-expected regularity; science takes the steps necessary to keep the questions flowing.

According to the bible the body of the first man was made by God from the slime of the earth(Gen.2:7{Douay Rheims})the obvious meaning is that God created Adam from a created substance the Genesis account is substantially and historically true but the Chuch does not forbid certain liberty of interpretation.Example,thedayof creation is not a 24-hour day as we know.The sun and the moon...(not light and darkness)were created on the fourth day so how were we suppose to have day one,two,and three the hebrew word fordaycan be understood for a day,week,month,year,or an indefinite period of time.On the seventh day God rested... ceased to make new kinds of things the seventh day continues to this present day everything that is made thus far is a development or combination of existing matter.Evolution is the theory concerning the origin and development of plants,animals,and man.The theory holds life began from the simplest form,then developed into more complex form until the most complex form man was evolved and man and ape both developed from a common ancestor.Please bear with me...this theory is yet to be thoroughly scientifically proved,natural science alone cannot explain how the first human body was actually produced.Dawinism cannot explain the origin of inorganic matter,or the origin in the simplest organism,devine revelation alone can give the answer to the origin of man ,and all created things.Evolutionists base their theories on the so-calledmissing link,but all skeletons discovered are either genuine men or of real apes.Distinguished modern scientists who deny that evolution is an established fact :Fabre,the outstanding naturalist of modern times;Millikan,the great physicist;John Burroughs,the naturalist;Professors Richet(Paris),and Henderson(Havard);Dr Dwight,the anatomist;Alexis Carell,and Sir Bertram Windle.Even if the theory of evolution could be scientifically proved,or if a missing linkwere discovered the theory would not be opposed to catholic doctrine,which merely requires the belief in the immediate creation of Adam's soul,inthe image of God,(God is a spirit so to is the soul; image and likeness of God),Anyevolutionwas surely begun by an intelligent cause:God.Man when in honor did not understand;he hath been compared to senseless beasts,and made like to them(Ps.48:21{Douay Rheims})...interesting?.. again,holy scripture was not written for the service of a technical reference work in science but rather to tell the story of creation for the belief of the people,not for scientific investigation.

I think it is very possible.What is six days for us it is 24 hours but who knows what the rotation was at the time of creation. Something had to kick the whole process into motion why could it not be god? We can't prove this but we can't prove it either. We do not grow from a rib but we do start of as two single cells. To say that it is impossible is a contradiction.

No, because the Bible is clear that God didn't create the universe using evolution. Because when God created the earth in 6 days, they were six literal days because in each of the days, it talks about night and day. In fact, it was God who invented the words night and day, while creating the earth. Plus it is also clear that after man was created, there was no death on the earth and both Adam and Eve were vegetarians ie they didn't eat meat. Neither did animals eat each other. For animals to eat each other, there would have had to been death, but there was no death. And for evolution to occur, you need death (animals eating each other (the carnivores). Animals and man only ate meat after Adam and Eve sinned. It is not possible to reconcile total evolution. But the Bible doesn't rule out evolution altogether. All life was made to evolve to a certain extent. Eg there are new strains of bacterium that are resistant to antibiotics. The only way it could have done that is by some sort of adaptation. But adaptation to the point of a total change of animal is when evolution is wrong and God did not design animals to turn into other creatures.

Of course they can. . .both theology and science require some degree of faith. Science has made incredible discoveries since the middle ages that have not (I repeat not) disproved religious faith. Science can help the religious understand the physical world if they open up their minds. . .those of the religious persuasion can remind the scientific community that some aspects of science and mathematics are based on faith. . .the sides continue to war when they should be partners in helping explain the physical, philosophical, and religious universe. Instead they pull at a rag-doll like children afraid to actually learn something new. . .it is a boring, tired, and antiquated argument.

Probably not after all this time. Creationists and Evolutionists have been so certain for so long that there position was true and right that I don't think we'll ever see any agreement or compromise, whatever science may eventually discover.

Sure- Whatever or Whoever created us WANTED us to evolve-like a Gardener who plants a seed and cares for it-knowing it will EVOLVE,flower and bear fruit.People who are so against the theory of evolution are just too insecure to look at how much human behavior is primate behavior-they need to read some Desmond Morris and stop bowing and scraping to the Alpha Males!!