While some bioethicists hail the occlusion of religion in bioethics as a triumph of rationality, a number of prominent bioethicists lament that religion does not currently play a larger role. Sociologist John H. Evans similarly regrets the absence of theologians in many bioethics debates as noted in his prominent works, The History and Future of Bioethics (2012), Contested Reproduction (2010), and Playing God? (2002). Evans argues that over the last forty years, the “formally rational” debate of bioethics has displaced theology’s more “substantively rational” form of debate. In an effort to save both the legitimacy of the field of bioethics and the role of religion in bioethics, Evans offers two models for the future of bioethics. Common to both of Evans’ models is a change of role for the professional bioethicist. Currently, Evans argues, professional bioethicists determine public policy based on four predefined, institutionalized, formally rational ends (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice), which are not reflective of the ends held by the public. Instead, Evans proposes that a “means to ends commission,” or “means commission,” of professional bioethicists should determine public policy in accord with the ends arrived at by substantively rational debate that includes the public and thus the substantively rational voice of religion. While Evans’ models are appealing inasmuch as they restore legitimacy to implicit or explicit religious ends in public bioethics debate, I demonstrate that Evans’ models are flawed on at least two important, related counts: (1) they overlook what I term “the problem of interpretation of ends” (PE) and (2) they overlook “the problem of determination of ends-consistent means” (PM). I argue that Evans’ practical models are inconsistent with his theoretical model, failing to protect the purview of theologians’ substantively rational debate that he defines, and thereby failing to restore the place of religion in bioethics that he sets out to restore.