Sorry. Should have also linked to the accompanying opinion piece by Nick Spencer, director of studies at Theos the theological think tank that commissioned this study.
He says:
But most people do not actively reject evolution ? they are simply sceptical about it. And the reason for their scepticism appears to lie in the fact that too many encounter Darwinism not as an elegant, parsimonious and well-evidenced scientific theory, but as a quasi-metaphysical one, an outlook on life that has become inextricably linked, through the purple prose of its most eloquent modern proponents, with reductionism, nihilism, atheism, and amorality. According to this understanding of Darwinism, morality (in as far as we can still talk about it) becomes calculating and fundamentally self-interested, ethical systems arbitrary, agency an illusion, human beings accidental and irrelevant, the human mind "a habitat for memes", the universe no more than "blind forces and physical replication", and God a nonsense.
By 'most eloquent modern proponents' of the Darwinistic outlook, Spencer is quite clearly referring to Dawkins.
He is trying to conflate rejection of theistic belief with 'amorality' and a belief in social Darwinism (survival of the fittest translated to apply to human society) which is a specious argument at best.