^Some would argue that God set in place the fundamental laws of nature so that these processes could happen- ie. that a universe created by God and a universe created by the scientific processes of the Big Bang, evolution, etc are not at all mutually exclusive, but that he knowingly set it all up to happen this way. This narrative gives God a less "hands-on" and intervening approach to Creation but its proponents argue that this does not diminish his role- in fact, it could pay Him more homage than the relatively simplistic "6-day creation" idea, as it celebrates Him as a completely omniscient being, capable of knowing and creating the very first atoms in a way such that one day, billions of years later, they would form part of sentient, conscious beings (us). These Christians say that even more miraculous than a literal Genesis story would be a God that set up the intricacies of nature with the knowledge that this would lead to the precise and advanced systems that led to human existence. A portion within this group believe that evolution is God-guided in and of itself. This belief system also has advantages in reconciling our scientific observations of the world around us with belief in God. All in all, many don't think that evolution (as well as other processes of creation eg. the Big Bang) and religious faith have to be antagonistic at all, but that the complexity of nature these processes entail in fact SUPPORT religious faith. Just my two cents :)

I disagree with your implication that "believing completely in the Bible" equates to believing that, literally, all the events of the Bible happened, as written, with no deviations. I think you can believe "completely" in the Bible and still take some narratives as allegory- with moral and spiritual significance, not necessarily with historical significance. Of course, any Christian will say that it’s infallible in its moral teachings, in its commandments, in its overall message of God’s existence. To any believer, it should be inerrant as a spiritual guide- this is made clear within it, as deviating from its instruction is considered sin and will be used in judgement. But to extrapolate this to it being inerrant as a historical guide… just seems unnecessary. Because to me, believing that some parts are merely narrative and allegory doesn't undermine one's faith in it.

Let’s take Genesis and the possibility that it’s an allegorical account, designed to describe mankind’s relationship to its Creator. God has not given us tangible evidence of a six-day creation. In actuality, he has given us an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary- the earth appears old, the sun and stars appear old. It is not wrong to believe this tangible, God-given evidence.

In contrast, when God does ask us to believe something, he gives us evidence. In asking us to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, he gives us evidence by resurrecting him from the dead. He then appeared to hundreds of people and gave visible/tangible evidence, witnesses whose reports form part of the Bible today.

Keeping this in mind, it is logical to assume that God doesn’t require his followers to believe the literal interpretation of Genesis 1. He has given us evidence, in text (see link) and in creation, that Genesis 1 is not intended as a literal description. Faith in God doesn’t require us to reject visible facts.

The Bible never claims it is an infallible text- in fact, the closest it comes to doing so is merely that it is “profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc”. The tenet of Biblical infallibility is one that only appeared in about the 20th century and one that only a limited amount of sects adhere to. For the Bible is not meant to be a scientific textbook, or reveal secrets about primordial history that have no relevance to salvation. The Bible does not answer the questions that science asks. Nor does science address all the issues the creation account does. The two approaches are different answers for different questions, and if people perceive conflicts between the two, it is because they are trying to force either the Bible or science to give answers for questions it was not designed for.

On a different note, why Darwin "purposely made" evolution is completely irrelevant to the theory as a whole. Science is not a personality cult. It's a vast base of provisionally-accepted knowledge forever being altered and added to, purely objective and untainted by accusations to people instead of the scientific ideas in themselves. Simply put, scientific fact really doesn't care who proposed it. If it has the plethora of valid evidence required, it's still scientific fact.

By definition, they kinda contradict each other. I mean, I'm just saying.