Not if said religious people don't think all things have to be proven with observable evidence.

The problem is that lots of Atheist say that it is Scientifically proven.

Fair enough. What I want know now is why this gives any reason to doubt a God.

Because it is proven.  The sad thing though is that even when religious people acknowlege evolution they will claim that they misinterpreted what was written in their religious books or whatever and that god's design is so amazing and sophisticated that it could actually evolve. 

All branches of Christianity came from what Jesus taught (I.e., Jesus is the only one you can redeem sins, and It's only by grace), not the Catholic Church. 

The Bible doesn't confirm or deny evolution. The only thing it claims is that man did not evolve from something else, but came from the dust. This means that man could evolve separately from animals.

History has shown nothing of the sort. Or are there some ancient surveys of which I'm not aware?

Evolution doesn't disprove God. Yes, it clashes with the idea behind a monotheistic, personal god that created the universe 6000 years ago, but the idea of a "prime mover" who "put the universe into motion".....that kind of god (a deistic one), evolution has nothing in its scientific model that should cast doubt in such a being. That kind of being has different reasons for being doubted. But evolution isn't one of those reasons

Jesus is the path and still the only mediator, but that doesn't erase the possibility that others can intercede in your behalf, next to Jesus. He will then decide based in His mercy.
Everybody can intercede for the sake of everybody. Saints, Mary, are no exception. Don't you pray for others? Then you are interceding.

Saints and even Mary are closer to God than the majority of people of faith because lived a human life closer to God and experienced Him in ways that others didn't. Why should it be surprising that people pray for their intercession, when their love for God can heal God's heart more than those who aren't so close to Him?
Who speaks more to your heart than those who are closer to you?

Their love replaces your lack of love or sins.

Revelation 5:8New International Version (NIV)

⁸ And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.

1 Timothy 2:1-4New International Version (NIV)

Instructions on Worship

2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— ² for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴ who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

I can't deny the existence of god entirely. I also can't deny the existence of the tooth fairy, an invisible pink unicorn in my backyard, or a teapot orbiting the earth. You cannot prove nonexistence, beyond what can be established by logic (such as the complete omnipotence example I gave). What I can do is apply the principles of science to decide that, in the absence of any evidence, I disregard existence as a possibility. I don't reject it, I just disregard it.

Tell me, why don't you believe in Zeus, Apollo, and Athena?

And if god can change the properties of the rock so that it can destroy it, then the rock never had the trait "god cannot destroy this". Therefore, god cannot create a rock that god cannot destroy. By the way, asserting that god can circumvent logic is to say that you think god is a contradictory and inconsistent being... does this not mean that god is imperfect?

Again, avoid the word "prove", because in science, it doesn't make sense (it's good in mathematics, though). What DNA code has done is provided far more evidence, both of the actual process of evolution (by observing genetic code transfer from parent to child, mutation, etc), and of the evolutionary connections between species. It's hard to boil it down to layman terms, but basically, we've been able to observe patterns of DNA in various fossils and in more recent remains that allow us to track genetic material in both space and time.

Science always recognises that it could be wrong. Falsifiability is a key requirement in science - any scientific experiment or hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is considered worthless. But the key is, we have limited knowledge, and that knowledge is always evolving (there's that word again) as we discover more. Sometimes, it results in us discovering that our previous understanding was wrong... and that's good, because it means we now know more than we did before.

When it comes down to it, all "knowledge" is subject to a few basic assumptions. Strictly speaking, you can't even prove that you exist. There is evidence of your existence, but that evidence is based on the assumption that the light that reaches my eyes exists. It's possible that I don't exist - I can't prove to myself that I exist. I don't believe that I exist - I operate on the assumption that I do, because of the classical two types of errors - if I assume I do, and I don't, then no harm is done. If I assume I don't, and I do, then I've done great harm.

Indeed, that same logic has been applied to religion by Pascal (famous scientist, also famous for Pascal's Triangle and the unit of pressure), who invented "Pascal's Wager", which basically says that one should operate on the assumption that god exists, even if you don't really believe, because you'll be rewarded for belief or punished for nonbelief if god exists, but no harm is done if god doesn't exist... the flaw in that reasoning, though, is that it assumes that an existing god rewards following the motions rather than sincere following of your own beliefs.

We call it strong evidence based on our understanding. Any of the three bolded considerations are capable of changing things. Occam's Razor could give a new theory precedence and change our understanding. Extraordinary evidence could come forward that contradicts our understanding. Further collection of data could result in statistical analysis being sufficient to indicate that the evidence was not as strong as we initially thought. But the key to all of this is "evidence", and it takes priority over a priori beliefs in science. This is also why we have different words for different statuses based on evidence. A postulate is something that is proposed as a kind of axiom, an assumption made in developing a model or hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea that can be tested and either falsified or collect evidence in favour of it. A theory is then a hypothesis that has been extensively tested, and all (or nearly all) evidence collected has been in its favour, and nothing has falsified it.

On the other hand, religion is an inherently subjective thing. Even if you had some being shout from the heavens that they would punish us, and suddenly we started having earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc in huge amounts, it wouldn't really be enough to determine that it was a god - it could simply be a sufficiently-advanced alien wishing to manipulate us. And so, religion is necessarily a domain of belief and faith, whereas science deals with facts and evidence. Atheism of the sort that I ascribe to (scientific atheism - it's not the only kind of atheism) is basically the extension of the scientific attitude into the question of religion... and naturally, without something a lot more solid than a book and a heap of stories, it takes the position that there isn't a god until sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate otherwise.