Sen. Brownback, evolution, and Catholic legal theory

I have never met Sen. Brownback, but I respect him, and tend to like his "pro-life, whole-life" package of views.  (He is willing to question capital punishment, he does not demagogue on immigration, he's good on aid-to-Africa, Darfur, and international religious freedom, etc.).  I was disappointed, though, by his recent op-ed in the New York Times, "What I Think About Evolution."

Now, it is perfectly understandable that the Senator was frustrated by the (inane) questioning during the first "debate" among the Republican presidential hopefuls.  And, it is entirely appropriate for him to insist that the answer to the question "who believes in evolution?" should involve "nuance and subtlety," and that the question itself (that is, the way it was posed) did a "disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason."  This sounds just fine to me:

People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less. Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

But then there's this:

If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

I'm not a trained scientist, and so I'm open to correction on this, but my understanding is that Sen. Brownback's professed embrace of "reason" requires more than "simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species[.]"  Maybe the Senator is trying, in his op-ed, to simultaneously (a) assure the New York Times that he is not an ignoramus and (b) assure those Christians for whom it is important that evolution involve no more than "small changes over time within a species" of his bona fides, but I hope not.

What's this have to do with our "Catholic legal theory" project?  Maybe this:  The foundational claim for us, I think, is that there is a truth about the human person, and that moral truth is accessible and built into all that is.  This claim requires, I take it, that it not be the case that the world is only matter in motion.  At the same time, it seems to me -- again, I'm open to correction here -- that a project which purports to have truth as its touchstone simply has no room for Sen. Brownback's stated view on "microevolution," a view that appears to reflect a refusal to follow the evidence where it leads.  (To be sure, Sen. Brownback is hardly the only politician, nor are anti-evolution Christians the only people in today's world, who refuse(s) to follow evidence where it leads.  Still . . . .).