I think it is an oxymoron. I see it as a vain attempt to gain the best of both ideologies; that of secularisim which essentially absolves one from contradicting establishment scientific academia and that of theism which offers a purpose for existence and a hope of a blissful existence beyond this life.
Well, since most Christians believe both that Jesus was a god and that the evidence supports evolution, apparently it's not vain to them.
It is aximoronic in that it implies a creationless deity, contradictory to the Biblical record, essentially reducing that record to the status of myth.
Of course, that doesn't fit the definition of oxymoronic. (I have no idea if it's aximoronic since I've never heard of that word before.) About the most significant thing that can be said is that it simply denies the legitimacy of a very simplistic view of the bible, a view that most people deny.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a
naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for
magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
™ Version 4.2