Actually, if you check the facts, all Kansas really wants to do is point out that there are significant holes in the fossil record that call into question aspects of macroevolution. Wouldn't it be honest to admit that such is the case? But, current Kansas guidelines prohibit such a mention -- no criticism can be made of evolution.
Perhaps it's well to find out the facts and not rely on biased journalism before jumping to conclusions... how unscientific.
> Actually, if you check the facts, all Kansas really wants to do is point out that there are significant holes in the fossil record that call into question aspects of macroevolution.
1: "Macroevolution" is a fanciful term with no sceintific definition. Say "evolution."
2: The holes in the fossil record present no difficulty for the theory of evolution, anymore than a lack of photos of Pluto's position yesterday show that Keplers laws of planetary motion are in jeopardy of being overthrown.
> Wouldn't it be honest to admit that such is the case?
No. It would be a lie to admit that, just as it would be a lie for me or you to "admit" that Bush invaded Iraq to steal oil.
> no criticism can be made of evolution.
Sure you can. Produce a scientific theory to counter evolutionary theory, and have at it. So far, though, no such theories are in evidence.
And every time they find a new intermediate fossil, that opens up two new gaps in the fossil record on either side. They think they're gathering evidence, but they're only undermining their own case! Fools!
Actually, if you check the facts, that's not true. Kansas, for example, claims there are problems with molecular evolution that actually don't exist.