The whole gist of this article is that the author was POed that his writing was not "beyond doubt". You just admit that part is a theoretical explanation.
Have I discounted that things evolved? No. I have said that some of the explanation is conjecture, prone to error, bias, and later correction and as such should be identified as such.
To some it is heresy to admit that science doesn't have all the answers at this time.
yes but as I stated, there are parts of the theory of evolution that are beyond doubt and those should be presented as fact in education, because they are treated as fact in science.
Do you actually know what is in highschool biology textbooks to know that they present the theoretical stuff as fact, and not the beyond doubt stuff?