Christians in science distinguish between “maximal naturalism,” another method of describing atheism, and all other forms of naturalism. Religious scientists are quick to point out that acceptance of evolution does not require acceptance of atheism. Howard Van Till, among many others, makes this quite clear. To say otherwise is simply not true.
Intelligent design apologists who claim to be Christian don’t mind distorting the beliefs of their fellow Christians especially by conflating philsophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. I can only think of two reasons for this. First, they may be ignorant of the large numbers of Christians who recognize the sound teaching of evolution. Alternatively, they may be intentionally misrepresenting the widespread Christian acceptance of evolution as solid science.
ID advocates who engage in this mischaracterization are not only wrong scientifically, they are wrong theologically. I particularly enjoyed Phillip E. Johnson lecturing the Pope on theology after the Pope made the scientifically unremarkable observation that evolution is just a little bit more than a theory, and not incompatible at all with Catholicism. He is not the only Catholic prelate to explicitly do so. Phillip Johnson’s comments demonstrate that his theological expertise is as lacking as his scientific expertise. Perhaps this type of Christian’s theology is so poor and so cramped that it cannot imagine a Divine immanence acting on His creation through evolution. The only other alternative is that these Christians do recognize that there are other Christians whose naturalism is not atheistic. However, the mere existence of large numbers of Christians accepting evolution refutes the argument that there is a legitimate battle between conflicting worldviews. Therefore, the ID apologists' theology permits them to lie for God by misrepresenting the science and the faith of their fellow Christians. In short, the end justifies the means as long as the end is the spread of the Gospel and the defeat of atheistic naturalism. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.