You can read a nice profile here on biologist and science author Kenneth Miller.
What struck me was a phenomenon I’ve encountered frequently online, described in Karl Giberson’s profile here:
Despite Miller’s tireless support for evolution—the popularity of his text and popular books make him one of the most influential “teachers” of evolution in America—many of his fellow evolutionists recoil from the old-fashioned religion that sits so comfortably in his soul, seemingly at peace with his science. In a wide-ranging essay in The New Republic, new atheist Jerry Coyne took a joint look at Miller’s Only a Theory and my Saving Darwin that came out about the same time. Coyne had many nice things to say and recommended both of our books. But in an extended examination of our mutual theological confusion, he chose to lump us with the creationists we had so strongly critiqued in our books, concluding—absurdly—that our “sincere but tortuous efforts to find the hand of God in evolution lead [us] to solutions that are barely distinguishable from the creationism that [we] deplore.”
Clearly, rational people are occasionally incapable of reason. Sometimes it’s as simple as a lack of reading comprehension. More likely, it’s a notion that everybody flying with the flock has to be beating to the same pulse. That’s simply not true. The point of the evolution/creation debate is not that God is dead or alive, but the simple (but not easy) science of how life, over time, moves from one form to another in response to various stimuli.
Catholic Sensibility 
It’s amazing how some people simply cannot tell the difference between science and religion. It goes for both religious fundamentalists and the new atheists.