If she had emphasized some opponents of the evolution theory that would be true. But it's easy to infer that she meant all, and if so she's wrong.
I think in context she can be taken to have meant some. The title of the talk was "The Age of Mediocrity" and if I recall right the context indicates she was talking about the court cases mounted by various groups of fundamentalists -- haven't time to check the whole text just now.
However, I do think that she was speaking beyond what she could possibly know about those people's motives.
Some people mistake a perversion of evolution, what Raymond Tallis calls Darwinitis, for evolution and consequently try to defend the dignity of man by opposing evolution. At least their motivation ought to be respected.
I don't know specifically what Tallis calls "Darwinitis," though I can imagine, and suspect I might agree. Definitely some prominent evolutionists -- for instance, Dawkins -- are determinists.
As to Rand's attitude toward people who believe in God, in person she wasn't so negative as she might seem to have been from her "the soul of the mystic" segment in Galt's Speech. (I very much dislike that segment, and at times have felt angered by its sweeping condemnation, even though I myself came to the conclusion when I was twelve that there was no need for the idea of "God.")
Her housekeeper Eloise was a Christian, and says that Rand never hassled her about her Christianity.
Joan Kennedy Taylor, in her Full Context
interview, tells how Rand surprised her by telling her to leave her father, composer Deems Taylor, alone about his religious beliefs. He's an old man and it comforts him, something like that, Rand told Joan.
Also there was the incident in one of her TV appearances where the interviewer -- was it Phil Donahue? -- said to her, "God bless you," and she graciously accepted this and said "God bless you" back.
PS to Bob: The Catholic Church accepts evolution as fact but adds that God intervened to give humans the divine spark of reason.
I think that the theory of evolution will always arouse cavils unless and until a naturalist explanation for volition is developed. I do not think that Rand has done the job of providing that explanation, I'll add.