> Stupefying.
Not really. Creationism becomes something of a challenge when you also have to explain the fossil record and radiocarbon dating (not to mention the *other* radiodating systems). Best to jsut get rid of all that pesky evidence.
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.