This debate has polarized so many over the past century for sure.
On June 26, 2007 Pope Benedict XVI stated that the theory of evolution is backed by strong scientific proof - but the theory does not answer life's "great philosophical question."
Debaters wrongly present the two sides "as if they were alternatives that are exclusive - whoever believes in the creator could not believe in evolution, and whoever asserts belief in evolution would have to disbelieve in God," the pontiff said.
Pope Benedict stated "This contrast is an absurdity, because there are many scientific tests in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and enrich our understanding of life and being. But the doctrine of evolution does not answer all questions, and it does not answer above all the great philosophical question: From where does everything come?"
In 1996 Pope John Paul II has even stated that evolution is "more than a hypothesis."
However, on a more detailed note, there is a big difference between Micro-Evolution and Marco-Evolution.
"Micro-Evolution" refers to developmental changes within a species, while "Macro-Evolution" is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.
There seems to be little doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes since many examples of such developmental steps are known to us from the natural processes of variation and development.
HOWEVER, as pointed out by (Szathmary and Maynard Smith), two convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, "the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution since there is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."
(Meaning that assuming that since mutations can happen at small cellular level does not necessarily mean that a species can change into another species.)
So what does this all mean to me?
I don't have the answer.
For me, it is important to be open to truth and not become so one sided that my opposition to either belief becomes an obstacle for truth. I do know that I am very limited in my capable of understanding God in his fullness, but am thankful to what he has revealed to us as of yet.
In my world, all research an ideology is held up to the simple truths of our faith and should support such truths, if the concept is in direct opposition to the basic truths of our faith, I question the assumption......
Also, The leaders of our faith do not make quick judgments, rather taking 100's to 1000's of years to discover "truth," prior to claiming it as "truth."
There is comfort in such a conservative nature.
Also, if truth cannot be identified, I respect that our Church chooses to withhold judgement and comment while patiently awaiting God to further reveal himself......In His time.....