Didn't Pennock Give Away the Store?

The Washington Post (and CNN, with photo) had this report on the testimony of Robert Pennock, an expert witness for the plaintiffs and the ACLU:

Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.

Well, the Dover policy does not involve teaching intelligent design in science class. It involves reading a one minute statement only once at the beginning of the semester in each biology class. That statement (full press release here) contains two sentences about intelligent design:

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

The sentences serve as a 15 second invitation to self study by reading Of Pandas and People. Pennock suggests that the school could teach about intelligent design in a philosophy class, or a course on the philosophy of science, the history of science or a class on science and culture. Let's suppose that the school had a class on Science and Philosophy. Is there any problem with a policy that provides that a 15 second announcement would be read in biology class informing students that the related course exists and inviting them to take it? If that is permitted, and the school does not have the resources to offer a full course, what is the problem with a 15 second invitation to self study the same subject matter?

In this light, it seems that Pennock's testimony actually supports the current policy of the Dover School Board. So does the US Constitution and common sense.

Now for my statement:

The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is also available for members of the mainstream media who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.