Kenneth Miller the hypocrite

Kenneth Miller, who was an expert witness for the plaintiffs in both the Kitzmiller v. Dover and the Selman v. Cobb County (evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker) cases, doesn't really care about the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state, because his own belief in Darwinism is based on religion. If Darwinism were purely scientific, Miller would not have to invoke his belief in god to support it -- no scientist would write a book with a title like "Finding Copernicus's God -- A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Heliocentrism" (a spoof on the title of one of Miller's books, with "Darwin" replaced by "Copernicus" and "Evolution" by "Heliocentrism"). Heliocentrism, just like evolution theory, is contrary to the bible; the bible says that the earth was created first and that the heavenly bodies were created afterward, implying that the earth is supposed to be the center of the universe. Miller just wants the courts to abuse the church-state separation principle to suppress scientific ideas that he disagrees with. The following review of the Discovery Institute's new book "Traipsing into Evolution" exposes the truth about this hypocrite (the reviewer says that the Dover decision is "one of the most irresponsible I have ever read") --

"Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller V. Dover Decision" is a response to Judge Jone's decision. Having read most of the trial transcript, I must conclude that this book is on target. My only complaint is the book is far too brief; many more problems exist with the decision that could have been included. It is very clear in his opinion that the Judge does not like Darwinism Skeptics as people. The judge in his decision largely accepted everything the ACLU said as true, and most everything the other side said as false (or he ignored it). This decision is one of the most irresponsible I have ever read (and I have read many court decisions). The Judge used numerous labels that he never clearly defined, or defined accordingly to his narrow purpose. An example is "creationist" and "evolutionist," and then concluded the creationists were the bad guys and evolutionists were the good guys. Reality is far more complex. For example, Dr Michael Behe, who the judge labeled a "creationist" testified that he was an evolutionist (he accepted common ancestry). It was the existence of the cell that Behe concluded Darwinism has difficulty explaining. Behe believes life beyond the cell could have evolved by mutations and natural selection. Conversely, Kenneth Miller testified that he was a creationist "in the ordinary meaning of the word" yet the judge labeled him an evolutionist. The difference between these scientists (both Roman Catholics and both labeled creationists) is in the degree of creating they have concluded that naturalism can achieve. It is obviously difficult to draw a clear line between the two theistic evolutionists, Behe and Miller, yet the judge did just that. This is important because the judge ruled that ideas given the creationist label cannot be taught in the public schools, and those given the evolutionist label can. The fact is, Kenneth Miller's ideas are clearly creationist as he explained in detail in the second half of his book "Finding Darwin's God." The judge thus ruled that Miller's theistic evolution creationism can be taught in the schools but Behe's theistic evolutionism creationism cannot. The court, contrary to the constitution, has ruled which religious ideas are orthodox, and thus OK to teach, and which religious ideas are forbidden. It is exactly because of rulings such as this why separation of church and state is a very good idea. Now we have state sectioned religion!
-- review written by "The Professor." From
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0963865498/104-7079811-9172749