"I don't mind teaching the uncertainties within the theory of evolution,"'Uncertainties'?? How about fabrications like 'Piltdown Man', do you teach that little bit of Darwinism treachery in class? Or do you mean the 'uncertainties' such as the fact that Darwin himself wrote that unless and until the missing linking fossils and transitional forms are uncovered his theory is dead in the water? I hope you teach this, it's all part of the story of 'evolution'.
Piltdown is taught; at least my graduate level evolution classes discussed it and why the British anthropologists fell for it hook, line and sinker. And also how it was distrusted from the start by most everyone else.
And Darwin did realize his theory relied on fossils that were not available. But that was the 1850s. You really think no fossils have been found since then? What do you think paleontologists have been doing for 150 years? They have a lot more fossils than you will find out about on the creation websites, that's for sure!
Here's one now!
(By the way, note the number: KNM-WT 15000. This is the 15,000th specimen from the West Turkana area of Kenya. There are a lot of other areas producing fossils in Kenya, and a lot of other countries both in Africa and around the world producing fossils. That's a lot of fossils! Folks quoting Darwin about the lack of fossils and transitional forms 150 years ago, and implying that is still true, must be getting all their eduction from the creation websites or something!)
Fossil: KNM-WT 15000 
Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)
Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)
Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)
Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)
Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)
Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38
"And Darwin did realize his theory relied on fossils that were not available. But that was the 1850s. You really think no fossils have been found since then? What do you think paleontologists have been doing for 150 years? They have a lot more fossils than you will find out about on the creation websites, that's for sure" They find fossils all the time, but not ones connecting apes to humans. The missing link is still missing.
Science requires a certain amount of reason and logic. In fact it requires a lot of these attributes. I'm not schooled in science, but I'm bright enough to know that if humans were once apes, then there should be all sorts of living transitional forms out there; some closer to apes than to humans and vice versa. At the very least there should be boundless historical or fossil PROOF that these ape-like humans, or human-like apes existed, and existed for a VERY LONG TIME before becoming fully human.
Since evolution is supposed to be a slow, gradual process that took, (allegedly), millions of years, the neccessary evidential fossils and links should be literally overflowing out there. With all the Darwinists, anthropoligists and archeologists in the world constantly digging for evidence, the earth should be coughing up indisputable proof of 'evolution' on a daily basis, but it does not so much as give us one single piece of PROOF. All we get after every "new find" is windy, indirect, inconclusive gibberish from the Darwinists.
Other questions left unanswered are why didn't the present day apes "evolve" into humans? Why are there no written historical documents recorded by humans detailing their (allegedly) intelligent, but sub-human beings that contested them for land, food, etc? There are just so many holes in 'evolution' that the more I study it the more I am sincerely shocked that it's taught as 'science', (unless of course there's an agenda behind it all).
It is mostly liberals who support Darwin's 'evolution', but it's interesting to note that as they still seek to unearth Darwin's dream 150 years later, after only three years of searching for Saddam's WMD they have declared they never existed. They possess all the patience in the world when it comes to supporting their own agenda. Evolution is the science of atheists, socialists and fools.