We appreciate the article, as it handles the questions with less inaccuracy and polarization than is common at the shallow end of the media pool.
Notable is the citation, now common among mainstream journalists, of Southern Seminary's Al Mohler. Predicatably, Mohler frames the issue as an either/or question of true commitment:
No one is going to read the Bible and be able to accommodate a natural reading of the biblical text with naturalistic evolution.
Perhaps the key word here is "naturalistic," which would exclude any involvement of God in any way. But Mohler as quoted seems content to imply that there are only two choices, the naturalistic one or "creationism," with all the freight that pertains thereto.
But to Ms. Evans' experience: people like her are the ones that provide SWNIDish motivation to address this issue. There's simply no reason a person should lose faith in the triune God of the Bible because of conflict with science. There is no conflict if one lets the Bible say what it actually says and science say what it does and can.
We don't enjoy scorning creationism. We do want to avoid the utterly unnecessary crises of faith that occur when believers are first grounded in the notion that all evolutionary thinking is antithetical to the Bible and then encounter the considerable evidence for an old earth and the development of life through its pre-history.
So it's very fine with us to hear the story of someone who has been there and back again.