> 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.
That would be factually incorrect, as there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.
2: The holes in the fossil record present no difficulty for the theory of evolution
If we find it impossible to fill those gaps, how can we prove evolution to be truth? Without a record of Pluto's position yesterday, you can't prove whether it was in the predicted place or not.
But if we'd like to practice and teach our kids sloppy "science," evolution as fact is certainly the way to go.
Sure you can. Produce a scientific theory to counter evolutionary theory, and have at it. So far, though, no such theories are in evidence.
You are either in denial, or just being close-minded. Creationism has valid science backing, as does ID. You just don't want to see it, so you close your eyes and go "nuh-uh." Most people get over that before they leave elementary school.
How curious. My evolutionary biology professor taught me in a seminar on evolution that I took as an undergrad taht there were such gaps. He's been on the opposing side of the Kansas Board, and yet even he admitted there were issues of discussion worth discussing. But, of course, he probably knows nothing compared to you.