Couple of points:
Books, particularly books explaining the natural sciences, are updated to reflect new information. This occurs for all categories of publishing, from popular science books, to school/university textbooks and specialist publications dealing with particular branches of science. There's a reason why my anthropology textbook is on its 16th edition in six years and my principles of geology text is on its 26th edition in 40 years.
Books are not the best receptacles for up to date scholarship in science. That's the role of professional journals. There is always a lag between the discovery and dissemination of new information, the publication of such information in a professional journal, the response and expansion on the topic and then the publication of any book on the subject.
Science starts from the position that you need to be able to support your position with evidence, otherwise its not valid. Science also works, to an extent, on breaking the work of others and disproving previous work based on new information. All scientific positions are b
The assumption in science is not that you're right, but that you need to prove you're not wrong. When I started my dissertation, my adviser told me to work under the assumption that everything I wrote was wrong and that he, and the other reviewers, would work to disprove everything.
Biblical literalists, on the other hand, start with the assumption that everything in the Bible is true (or, the assumption that it is perfect). Any evidence that does not fit this assumption is either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant to whatever flavour of literalism the particular literalist holds to.
Tell me, which position do you think is more prideful?