Why is it that God couldn't have made Creation with evolution?

There are actually two different questions before us:1. Is it necessary to invoke a god in order to account for the universe?2. Given that one already believes in a god, eg in YHWH (AKA "God"), how does one reconcile that belief with the facts of the universe being the way that it is?These are two different questions and you were responding as if to Question #1, whereas Kyrill's post actually dealt with Question #2.The problem that some believers face is that they are being taught that the universe must be a certain way or else God is disproven. It is a problem only because that certain way that they prescribe is not the way that the universe actually is, so that in effect they are teaching that if the universe is as it actually is, then that disproves God.That is wrong and self-defeating. As a result, creationists must deny reality and make contrary-to-fact claims and by all means avoid every really looking at the evidence. And when they do finally really look at the evidence, then they cease to be creationists and in many cases become atheists, just as their religious leaders had taught them to do, had inflexibly insisted that they must do. It's crazy and spiritually suicidal, but that's what they do!Instead, believers need to find a way to harmonize their beliefs with the way that the universe actually is, rather than try to dictate that the universe must instead be something that it is not. One way is what Kyrill presented, to believe that his god had set everything up and maybe even gave the evolving universe a little nudge here or there to coax it in the right direction. That approach does not require denying nor ignoring any of the evidence, nor does it require the formulation of blatantly false claims nor the need to engage in the deception of others. And the fact that the universe is the way that it is therefore presents no danger to his faith.Which was the goal to begin with. While adding a god to the mix does nothing to explain the universe, it does in the believer's mind give God a role in things. Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of ID, once expressed the reason for his opposition to evolution as being that it leaves God with nothing to do. Kyrill's approach both shows that there is no reason to oppose or reject evolution and it gives his god an essential role to play.Among theists, Kyrill's approach is the more mature and the more intelligent one.

i agree it is a way more intelligent approach, because you cannot disprove it like you cannot disprove the stranger braking the vase in my earlier example, he could have worn gloves (no fingerprints), and he could have picked the lock whit plastic picks that leave no trace of tampering and re locked the door the same way after he left. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so there is a possibility that the stranger did it, the same could be said for god in the big bang theory or evolution it is possible though given the evidence it is a very remote possibility and it is impossible for science to disprove it though an educated guess of science would be no god whit these facts as would the jury say the kid did it there was no stranger