I do not see what the big "hang up" about Darwinian evolution is. The Theory of Evolution is like the Theory of Gravitation. Both are facts about the natural world.
We can reject materialistic evolution as being philosophically absurd. As I said before, arrangements of molecules and atoms do not fall in love or seek out Internet message boards to have lively debates. That God injected Himself into Creation and "interrupted" the natural processes of life to infuse life with souls and spirits is as certain as the Earth being round or the Sun being a star.
As I have said before, God exists because we exist, and we exist because God exists. QED.
Darwinian evolution is neither "fact" nor "theory"; in the natural world, we can observe facts and theories give well supported explanations of the facts, but no one has ever witnessed molecules-to-man evolution, or Macro-evolution.
This is false. Both micro and macro evolution have been observed in "the wild." (Take antibiotic resistance, to name one example out of many.) But, who cares???? So what?! That evolution occurred proves absolutely nothing. It is simply a scientific description of the World. So what. As Catholics, we are beholdened to the Revelation of Jesus Christ as entrusted to His Apostles and then to the Church.
Who cares? As Dylan pointed out, Evolutionism is at total odds with the Holy Bible. You can't believe in Adam and Eve if you believe in Evolution.
If Evolution is true, how did the first cell form? How can gases "become" a super complex cell? This is a direct contradiction of cell theory, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
And if "God did it" then why did He give us the Book of Genesis if all of it is just false? Being a Theistic evolutionist is like giving one hand to God and the other to Satan. It doesn't work out.
There's only one difference between Creationism (which is what all the Saints taught) and Evolutionism -- Creationism doesn't contradict science.
Atheists love to display the following cartoon:
Their error is in not recognizing that the "string" pulls
both ways. Consider our Lord's miracle of turning water into wine. How can one "analyze" that scientifically? With the right instruments, one could verify that the water, prior to the miracle, contained no alcohol, and after the miracle, one could use the same instruments to verify that the water did contain alcohol. However, where did the alcohol
come from? That is unverifiable, hence, the miracle. It just happened, and there is no scientific explanation whatsoever as to
how it happened.
With miracles, we can only see their
results or
effects. They cannot be investigated scientifically, and it is futile to do so.