on Panda's Thumb falsely charges that the Discovery Institute was being inconsistent by filing an amicus brief
urging Judge Jones to rule that Intelligent Design is good science and then condemning
him as an "activist judge"for ruling on the scientific merits of ID. However, a co-author of the DI amicus brief, DI Center for Science and Culture senior fellow David DeWolf, was also a co-author of an amicus brief from 85 scientists
urging Judge Jones to not rule on the scientific merits of ID. So what the DI was essentially telling Jones was, "we urge you not to rule on the scientific merits of ID, but if you do, we urge you to rule that ID is good science or at least not bad science, non-science, or religion." The DI was just trying to cover all of the bases -- there is nothing wrong with that. And it doesn't bar the DI from criticizing Judge Jones for ruling on the scientific merits of ID.
Fatheaded Ed Brayton made the same kind of argument about the Lemon test that is used in deciding establishment clause cases. He made the absurd argument that it is inconsistent to both oppose use of the Lemon test and also argue that the test's second ("effect") prong should not be applied if the first ("purpose") prong is sufficient to decide the case. As the saying goes, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade -- in other words, if you can't stop the courts from using the Lemon test, try to make the best of it.