The Catholic Church does not require people to deny evolution so long as we do not deny core doctrines about God, His nature, and the fact that God alone is and everything is created AND doctrines about original sin.
There are actually TWO creation accounts. The Church has debated over what their literal interpretation should be. So while we might say the literal meaning is that the world was created in seven 24 hour days, you’ll find in the old debates a sense of the literal to mean the actual proper understanding of a text. As such, we’ll talk about a literalistic interpretation of Genesis today.
Anyway, the first creation account is really about presenting the entirity of creation as God’s Temple, with humanity as like like the graven images in a pagan temple of the gods they people worshiped. Scott Hahn has a pretty good exegesis on this first creation account.
The second creation account contradicts the first. He speaks of man and woman’s relationship to each other and the animal world. There have been varying interpretations of it. I find its meaning ambigious. At the heart of Catholic uncerstanding is the doctrine of original sin. And usually the conflict of believing that we stem from Adam and Eve exclusively is rooted in “How does all of humanity inherit original sin if we don’t share the same first parents?” The Pope was very concerned about evolutionary theory unraveling this doctrine and insisted that we needed to believe in first parents even if we their bodies previously existed and evolved from non-humans.
But this expression of concern was not one of the infallible statements, and the Pope did also have difficulties with believing the earth revolved around the sun. We have better apologetics for the politics of that. But I still think most apologists tend to not fully understand the science and current conflict. And there’s a lot of hesitancy about just saying "Well this doctrine isn’t infallible . . . so . . . "
What I’d say is that the story of the fall of man offers greater spiritual mysteries about the nature of sin than it does upon literal events. Both stories also read to me more as an oral tradition, a sacred fable, a divinely inspired sort of Aesop’s fable that we should imaging being taught orally by a camp fire by primitive people. An ancient parable.
We shouldn’t just dismiss the stories as if we’re wiser and realize they’re myths for the sake of tossing aside the incompatible stuff. But we should reflect upon what the original intent was of these stories. What is the literal meaning rather than the literalistic?
Oh, one other thing ‘adam’ in Hebrew means ‘man’. So even if you go to the genology chart in genesis, adam could very well be a marking of “man and his wife” rather than “A man named Adam and his wife.” These could be unknown ancestors where their genology just doesn’t go far back enough. But it even is ambigious as to when adam means man and when it’s a formal name in that second creation account. A translator has to make a decision.