Sure. You can say God created evolution (i.e. theistic evolution). You could also say that God helps evolution along (i.e. guided evolution). But these ideas are just God of the Gaps. They don't really explain anything, they just move God into pockets of what is still unknown. Simply pointing to something we don't know and plugging God in, doesn't constitute as a science.

Nice why of putting that, but how is putting a theory on how things are and how they came to be not the same attempt at bridging the same gap between the known and the unknown; just presented in a different way?

It's not entirely easy to define what science is. To be a scientific theory, it's said you need 3 things: predictive power, falsifiability (i.e. can be proven wrong), and explanatory power. In theoretical science, such as string theory, you're trying to attain these things.

The God of the Gaps doesn't have any of these 3 properties. And no one seems to know how to go about it in a way to achieve these 3 properties. So far it's just pointing out what has not been scientifically explained, and invoking God as some glue.

A great way to learn about science is the history of scientific theories. Classical mechanics, general relativity, big bang, and evolution all made many precise predictions about the world, which were confirmed many times over many years. These predictions helped lead the way for more scientists to either replace the theories or revise the theories.

What do you do with "God did it"? As a science, which aims to have predictive and explanatory power, where does it get you? How does a scientist spend 40 hours every week working on this theory, other than pointing out what we cannot currently explain?

Thank you for the insight. I personally I'm not religious. I just cant help but notice the similarities as to why these systems exis; being too give answers to our most sought after questions.

Why is creationism mutually exclusive of theoretical sciences of the same field? — LuckilyDefinitive

Well creationism does actually include some evolution, they just call it something different. Where the two divide is on scale. Under creationism any kind of evolution must happen on a much smaller times scale, as the earth is only 6000 years old. It includes small changes over short time, such as dog breeding or getting a trait from a parent. Obviously, evolution accounts for changes over much greater time scales, and therefore contains more severe changes.
So the timescale is where they become mutually exclusive, not necessarily because of evolutions premiss of biological change over time.
Thats why evolution seems so preposterous to a creationists, because evolution of the darwinian kind IS preposterous on a 6000 year old earth.

Creationism as an idea, despite it's actual meaning, has a particular quality to it - that whatever was/is/being created was/is/will be fully-formed. Put otherwise, creationism has a fundamental disagreement with the notion of a progression from the simple to the complex; it has to since to allow this possibility would put in question the necessity for a creator/god. If simple life can evolve into complex life, humans being a case in point, god isn't necessary.

So, I find the idea of theistic evolution incoherent because it involves accepting the progression of the simple into the complex and at the same time, by positing god(s), it seemingly denies that this can happen without assistance. So, no, I don't see how a creationist can be a Darwinian evolutionist.

This might be a good read for your way of interpreting Darwinism. https://consciouslifenews.com/the-shocking-truth-about-charles-darwin/11102148/ Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver, and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin This as well.

What do you do with "God did it"? As a science, which aims to have predictive and explanatory power, where does it get you? How does a scientist spend 40 hours every week working on this theory, — Malice

By getting to know God, and psyching out what His next move will consist of.

For instance, you want to verify the relationship of measured qualities of gases under compression. You can figure out the equation (P1/(T1*V1))=(P2/(T2*V2)) two ways:
One way: doing meticulous experiments, and invoking the molecular theory to explain the phenomena you observed;
The other way: Psyching god out, either by learning through prayer where you hear god's answers how this thing actually works, or else by being smarter than him, and always knowing his next move before it happens.

I used to pass exams in Calculus in fifth semester college sheerly on the power of prayer as above.

Thanks for the links. I've always been a little confused about this issue. We are in awe of what I assume is the complexity of the cosmos, life being the crowning glory. If Darwin did believe in god and also in his theory that the simple evolved into the complex then it doesn't add up. As I said much of the amazement we feel rests upon the complexity of the cosmos and Darwin, in his theory, is making the claim that it all began simple. Also, physics, if it's to be believed, pins down the existence of the universe and everything in it to, as the title of a book reads, just six numbers. Now, I don't know how exactly to describe this "situation" but I feel people won't call me out if I claim that it really couldn't get simpler than just six numbers. If so, we should be marvelling at the simplicity of the universe rather than its complexity.

Either our intuitions on what is awesome is way off the mark or if it is correct, we abandon god understood as the source of complexity because the universe, despite its current vast complexity, began simple with just six numbers.

That said, I feel we're in the situation I found myself in when I saw a mathematical equation in a cartoon. Was the equation genuine, the work of a genius or was it gibberish, the random doodles of a fool: is the simplicity of the universe a sign of a vast intellect (god) or just mere luck. This is the idiot savant paradox.

universe a sign of an vast intellect (god) or just mere luck. This is the idiot savant paradox. — TheMadFool

You mean... god is an idiot?

Idiot may not only mean stupid... it can mean "smart, but mentally ill".

You mean... god is an idiot?

Idiot may not only mean stupid... it can mean "smart, but mentally ill". — god must be atheist

I've been meaning to say these words at some point in my life and this seems a golden opportunity, so...Divine Simplicity.