Choice of creationist to give inaugural invocation is condemned

The Darwinists are constantly crowing about popes, archbishops, ayatollahs, lubavitcher rebbes, witch doctors, sermons, encyclicals, fatwas, etc. that say that there is no conflict between evolution and religion. But now the hypocritical, intolerant Darwinists are trying to deny religious leaders complete freedom of expression about evolution by calling for discrimination against creationist religious leaders. Darwinists are condemning Obama's choice of a creationist pastor, Rick Warren, to deliver an invocation at Obama's inaugural ceremonies [1] [2] (the choice is also being criticized because of Warren's opposition to same-sex marriage). If Obama had chosen a Darwinist religious leader, would critics of evolution be complaining? I doubt it.

William Dembski said that theistic evolutionists are Intelligent Design's most implacable foes. Atheists don't have to "prove" that they believe in evolution -- it's expected of them. However, some theistic evolutionists feel the need to appease the Darwinist establishment by "proving" that they really believe in evolution, and they do so by persecuting critics of evolution theory. Ken Miller, the plaintiffs' lead expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, is the poster child of such theistic evolutionists. Winston Churchill defined an "appeaser" as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Why should religious people show support for Darwinism when the Darwinists show such intolerance for religious people who do not support Darwinism?