For all those who liked to portray President Bush as a right-wing Bible thumper--not really so. Of course, that was obvious after 9-11 when he continuously referred to Islam as a religion of peace. But recently he was quoted as saying that the bible is probably not literally true. He was referring to his belief in the "scientific fact" of evolution and how he didn't find it incompatible with belief in a Creator.
Evidently, what he's not taking literally is Genesis 1-3. For there is no compatibility at all between believing that death only came into the world as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve (full-fledged homo sapiens) and the belief that death after death and mutation after mutation is what actually caused human beings to come into existence as a species.
Then there's this little problem: If death isn't the wages of sin, then why did Jesus need to come and die to break the curse of sin and redeem us? For that matter, why did Jesus Himself refer to the Creation account literally (as in Matthew 19)? Or why did Paul (as in 1 Corinthians 15:22)? The fact that the President refers to God sending "a" son rather than "His Son" or even better "His only Son" is telling. (Come to think of it, that language sounds a lot like a certain Synodical District President a few years back at Yankee stadium.)
Once you start discounting or rejecting some parts of the Scriptures, the Gospel itself is threatened. Creation and Salvation belong together. If you attack one, you attack the other. Salvation is our re-creation in Christ. For "all things were made through Him (Jesus), and without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:3; see also Colossians 1:16-17). "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
Anyway, here's the article.