God and evolution

[Blue Rectangle]

I get the sense from the religious right that you cant believe in both. am i correct?

No.

You can't believe a 100% literal version of the Bible and believe in evolution, but that's a different question.

[Blue Rectangle]

As far as evolution, it's not a "believe in..." kinda thing, like gods are.

Here's how I roughly break it down:

Science
Describes observed phenomena.  It does not tell "why" but "in what way".  For example, a theory of gravitation does not tell why an apple falls, but describes the motion of the apple.  Science cannot truly prove anything that happened in the past, such as whether evolution occurred, but it can use theories based on current observations to extrapolate back to what might have happened.

Religion
Concerns beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven and therefore rely on faith.  Religion, like science, is free to use theory, reason and extrapolation to arrive at conclusions that are not directly based on faith.  However, it should always be kept in mind that these conclusions were derived from faith and therefore are not scientific.

Philosophy
This is a broad topic.  Philosophy, in terms of methods of reason, is used by both Science and Religion.  Other branches of philosophy, such as metaphysics, are separate from science and religion.  Metaphysics can use observed phenomena or unprovable faith as starting points, but does not use them as Science and Religion do.  It's a gray area, though, and a lot of Philosophy has strayed too far and become bad Science or bad Religion.

Here's an example (the existence of God) of how mixing fields improperly can lead to problems:
Start with a scientific look at the existence of God.  We have no observable evidence of God's existence, therefore we have no basis to theorize that God does exist.  Good so far, but now insert Philosophy.  Let's assume that only the observable exists (an unprovable assumption and absolutely not Science).  Since God is not observable, he does not exist.  This is a logical conclusion, given our assumption, but that does not make it true.  Claims that this conclusion is "scientific" and that it has been "proven true" are themselves false.