I think one can live with the 37% of divinely-guided evolution -- it's at least indicative of a willingness to accept current knowledge, while holding on to a religious belief.
And actually, you can't blame them either. So many of the nature programmes, the popularisations, present nature as if it had some design and intentionality, that things are the way they are today because of fulfilling some goal. And it's easier to wrap one's head around an ordered complexity from a grand design, than of one emerging out of the randomness of differential survival.
Moreover, belief in a divinely-guided evolution is fully compatible with a respectful relationship with the environment and with the idea of stewardship.
It's more than time to take an aggressive stand on values -- our values vs their values, and our practices vs their practices. The religious right has been allowed to get away with the good slogans: who is not pro-life, or for moral values, against which pro-choice begins to sounds mean and narcissistic.
Against their "trustworthy", there's not only the fact of lies and the practice of systematic lying, of corporate sleaze and corruption, but we have the "caring for people" (those listing this as a central quality voted 3:1 for Kerry).
Against their "family values" is the fact of their divorcing in similar proportions as everyone else, which no manner of rationalisations about the "godless" "fornicators" and "co-habitors" can erase. There are their teen pregnancies in about the same or higher proportion than the secularists, controlling for race.
kj khoo