Sen. Brownback and evolution: a response to Rick

I think Sen. Brownback's statement affirming belief in "microevolution" and rejecting an "exclusively materialistic" macroevolution is more nuanced than Rick suggests.  He answers two questions about evolution but is silent on the third, neither asking nor answering it.  1) He believes "microevolution" to be true.  And, from my limited understanding of science all reasonable people must believe this just as they must believe that the earth is not flat because it has been proved by observation.  2) He doesn't believe in an exclusively materialistic evolution.  This seems to be a reasonable position.  Even Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and evangelist for atheism) called macroevolution a "blind watchmaker."  A watchmaker because the evidence seems to suggest design (his observation) but blind because there really is no design (his philosophical or theological commitment).  (I am doing this from memory so open myself up for correction on both what he said and my understanding of what he said). 3)  Brownback doesn't ask or answer the question that could get him into political trouble no matter how he answers it (assuming he has an answer):  Does he believe that God used a macroevolutionary process to get us to where we are today? 

In short, Brownback doesn't fail to follow the evidence where it leads, he refuses at this point to enter that debate.  Or, at least that is my reading of it.