More Discovery Institute hypocrisy about Dover

Judge Jones' ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case found the Dover Area School District's policy on intelligent design a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause on two grounds. First, on the ground that it had a specifically religious purpose, and second, that intelligent design is not science but religion, and so the policy was an endorsement of religion. These are two of the three prongs of the "Lemon Test" for whether a state action violates the establishment clause.

The Discovery Institute has argued that Jones' ruling should only have used the "purpose" test and not the "endorsement" test.

Ed Brayton points out that this position is contrary to the position that creationists and intelligent design advocates have argued for the last three decades--that the "purpose" prong of the Lemon Test for violations of the First Amendment's establishment clause is unfair and should be abandoned. Ed observes that at least four DI personnel--Casey Luskin, Frank Beckwith, Mark Ryland, and David DeWolf--have all argued this way in the past.

His post also responds in some detail to the specific arguments made by Philip Italiano, a law student at Rutgers Law School, who is the latest to argue that Jones should only have used the "purpose" test.