Note to put too fine a point on it, but I used radical change to assert the theory of evolution had contained errors in the past, to support the contention it no doubt contains errors now which will be revealed in the future.
First... what errors? Second, making small refinements to an existing theory is not necessarily indicative of major changes down the road. As someone else pointed out, the theory of gravity did not "radically change" when Einstein refined it. Additionally, future discoveries regarding the nature of gravity in a black hole would not necessarily change the fundamental principles of the theory of gravity.
Oh... and you have yet to tell me what "radical changes" have been made to the theory of evolution.
So to sum up, teaching the limits of our understanding and the conflicting ideas about what is not well understood is fundamental to education. To be dogmatic about scientific understanding is at its core unscientific.
It almost seems like you want teachers to lecture kids on flaws with one particular theory that may not even exist. The theory of evolution is taught as a theory which has been thoroughly researched and is generally accepted as fact. Same thing with the theory of gravity.
Darwin's theory of evolution has been discarded and a new theory adopted, neo-Darwinism. The question we must ask ourselves is will some new insight come along and radically alter our understanding in the future. I believe the answer to that question is yes.
I would LOVE to see you show me how Darwin's theory has been "discarded".
Neo-Darwinism is not a "new theory". It is a new way of approaching Darwin's theory by examining evolution on the molecular and genetic levels.
Let me ask a simple question. Why are some poisonous animals brightly colored? How do predators know the brightly colored animals are poisonous? You would think natural selection would eliminate genes that produce easy targets.
Yeah! Or you would at least think that natural selection would give those brightly-colored animals a means of defending themselves... oh... wait...
And if the predators know to avoid the bright colored animals, how did this instinct evolve? Why didn't the genes that produce the bright colors get weeded out of the pool before the genes evolved that say avoid the bright colors. Sounds like a mode and tempo controversy? But interesting, and useful to train critical thinking.
Wow... so many issues here.
1) Bright coloring is not necessarily a bad thing. It's obviously worse for camoflage, but it's the equivalent of walking around with a sign that says "I have a gun and I will shoot you".... nobody is going to want to go near you. Think of it this way, if you're skin is toxic, but you look like every other piece of prey out there, you're skin probably won't do you much good until it's too late. (But hey, at least you get the last laugh) If your skin is toxic AND brightly colored, predators will learn to associate the bright coloring with danger or discomfort.
2) Genetic memory is still a bit uncertain... especially when it comes to animal instincts. Does a bear automatically know how to catch fish? Or do they learn the skill from their parent?
If you want to teach your children that embryos have slits like fish, fine. Have at it. I want my loved ones to understand Darwin was right about many things, but also wrong about many things and that we have moved on.
What was he specifically wrong about?
