They modify 'evolution' all the time. The Dawkins/Gould debates about 30 years ago were instrumental in moving away from group selection and going toward gene selection. (Recent stuff with Craig Venter's work, molecular genetics, epigenetics, etc...) It's difficult enough to teach the BASICS of science, let alone giving them a grasp of the development of scientific theories.mockbee wrote:That's fine if people choose to take Biology and not believe what they are studying, that's fine (but dumb) if you want to teach Biology and not believe what you are teaching. But until some well respected and widely lauded scientists modifies/disproves portions of evolution, that's what you teach. It doesn't get modified because.... "it jest duusn't saaund raaght." I apologize to people who speak like that, but that just seems to be how it always comes out.....
They teach "the controversy" in low-level university "philosophy of science" courses (there was a philosophy course at my old institution called "science and pseudo-science" investigating the ways in which these are distinguished epistemically and in practice). It's idiotic to take time away from an already compressed curriculum to add stuff that isn't science to it.
One thing Dawkins likes to point out that I think is absolutely right is that Biology is basically a whipping boy because the basic idea of evolution is APPARENTLY so simple, and so plainly contravenes biblical literalism. But if they were being consistent... why aren't they questioning physics, geology, etc? Why not teach the controversy over the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? (Bohmian Mechanics is a viable alternative, let's teach that!!!) RETARDED.