It's been mentioned here, but it doesn't help anybody to downplay or forget the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. I stake a fair part of my livelihood every year on the truth of microevolution. I'm a dairy farmer, and I spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars every year buying semen from the best bulls to breed my cows, and selling at a loss or slaughtering my poorest-performing cows in hopes of forcing my herd to "evolve" into a more efficient, better milk producing herd. If I do it right someday I'll even have cows or bulls that other people will want to pay a premium price for, to add to their herds. Microevolution has been demonstrated time and again to work, it's mechanisms have been (largely) explained, it's all but scientific fact.
Macroevolution is somewhere between microevolution and abiogenesis, both of which are basically just extrapolations of microevolution beyond the observable. If you can't observe it, it's philosophy, not science. Creationism and macroevolution are philosophical/religious positions, not scientific ones. It's arguable that science is a religion, but that's another story.
Re: the above post saying that Catholics are not Christians, I'm sorry but that's silly. I'm a Protestant, but the difference between Catholic and, say, Baptist is really not that much more than the difference between Baptist and Lutheran, or Wesleyan and Presbyterian. The "Catholic Bible" is the same as the "Protestant Bible", except that while most Protestants would see the Old Testament as of lesser authority than the New Testament, Catholics add the Apocrypha as of lower authority still.
