EDIT: Sorry for the massive post. Tendency to go long is another reason I generally avoid these. It's basically two sections, the first section basically gives my position, the second section is why I think the argument over evolution is generally harmful and why OP is a terrible person for starting it. (Okay, only one of these things)
---------------
I really don't intend to get drawn into a major discussion here; I've had enough of these arguments in the past, and I prefer to have these conversations in smaller settings where there's sometimes some meaningful dialog rather than the shouting matches that sometimes occur in forums. (Haven't read the last 17 pages to see if that's the case here)
As a Christian, I'm not inherently opposed to the scientific theory of Evolution, the idea that humankind may have come to exist through a series of genetic mutations selected by the process of natural selection, etc.
The key word in that sentence, though, is "scientific". I do take issue with the naturalistic materialist philosophy that is often bundled part-and-parcel with the theory of Evolution: that a direct consequence of the theory of evolution is that God had nothing to do with it. "Evolution vs. Creation" is a false dichotomy, as many Christians believe in "Creation through Evolution", that evolution happened, but that the process was designed, started, and directed by the hand of God.
The best analogy for this that I've heard is the "pie" model vs. the "cake" model, that many people view the world as a pie, and they're trying to divide it up: "oh, this piece has a natural explanation", "oh, this piece has a supernatural explanation". (Or, more often, they're trying to have the whole pie) But a better model is that of a cake, where natural and supernatural are layered on top of each other. Understanding the natural aspects of this world doesn't need conflict with the supernatural aspects, and only taken together do you get the whole picture.
(If your rebuttal to any or all this is "But determinism!" then, one, props to you for knowing your philosophy, but secondly, it's exactly that. Philosophy. Not science. If you can scientifically prove determinism, you should be sharing this with the Nobel Prize committee, not the Escapist forums. And, for that matter, even determinism isn't incompatible with the idea of God, just ask a Calvinist.)
------------------------
But really, the whole question of Evolution is just too drawn out for both sides. It really isn't that important. The core of Christian belief doesn't rest in the first two chapters of Genesis; it's in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Maybe evolution happened, maybe it didn't. The net impact of that question on my faith in God? Not much. The official Catholic position on evolution, I understand is something like "It probably happened. Maybe" and they haven't imploded yet.
And from the side of science, it's unhealthy too. Trying to make the question of evolution into an argument against religion isn't exactly healthy for science either. For one, it's made the scientific community extremely defensive of evolution in a way that they shouldn't be. It gets put on a pedestal of "you can't question this, because you'll be giving ground to THE ENEMY", which is a position that no scientific theory should be in.
I'm not saying evolution doesn't have evidence, but I will say it doesn't have as much evidence as, say, Newtonian Physics. Imagine the outcry the scientific community would have made if the religious community decided that we didn't believe in Newtonian Physics a hundred or so years ago. It would have been insane. And then, this guy Einstein would have shown up questioning the whole thing, he'd have had his funding revoked faster than you can say "Schrödinger's cat". (Which, for me is a relatively long time, but you get the point)
Yes, I'm slightly mangling my presentation of physics (we'll just call it artistic license), but the point is, no theory deserves to be beyond question, not in the way that evolution is. The documentary Dispelled does a good job showing just how open the scientific community isn't to normal scientific inquiry on this issue.
Okay. Cutting myself off here. Two giant walls of text is enough. (I try to intersperse some bad puns here and there to make it bearable) Feel free to message me, if you have a question you really want to hear an answer to. Anyways, thank you for reading, if you did. If not, and you're the sort of person who just jumps to the last sentence of a post: hello!