If they're not gung-ho for evolution then don't expect any respect from the scientific community. In the evolutionary camp, your degree only "counts" if you believe.....
Actually, AR Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, and Ian Barbour all have no reason to believe that neo-Darwinianism is not a suitable mechanism by which evolution may occur. The point of the matter is, whether neo-Darwinianism is correct says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, nor of God's role as Creator. Going back to the Anglican church in the late 18o0s, many bishops and theologians heralded Darwinism as a friend of the Christian religion that speaks of an immanent God that is creating in the world now, as opposed to a deistic god that set the universe in motion and let it go.
One true myth propounded by anti-religious "scientists" is that the Christian church rejected Darwin's theory of evolution as anti-Christian understanding of the universe. For example, historical evidence is now irrevocably clear that Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) and Wilberforce (an Anglican bishop), never had the battle royale of reason versus superstition that those who want to be anti-religious have manufactured. In fact, it was the scientific community that was more virulently anti-Darwinian.
Christian theologians and ministers have embraced the idea that evolution may well be part of God's creative process. Perhaps, all of it. If you are a theist, there is no reason not to believe that evolution may be part of God's creative work in the universe. Chance and necessity interplay in the postulated process of evolution. This does not necessarily mean that life and/or evolution is random and meaningless, it still may be purposeful, as any theist would argue that it is. Those who claim that evolution shows that 1) there is no God or 2) means life is random are taking one part of evolution -- chance mutation -- and elevating it to a metaphysical position that it does not deserve. Just because mutation may occur by chance does not mean that the ultimate becoming of evolutionary processes does not have a purpose.