It's not absolutely false. Ever compared what your high school chemistry class taught you about electron orbits and what college biochem class taught? What was the first they taught in biochem about those orbits? That your high school chemistry teach lied to you, what they taught you in high school was grossly over simplified to the point of fiction, but it was considered "good enough" for high school kids learning "water chemistry" who aren't going to have to get into complex chemical reactions. Those simple orbits are something every high school chem student learned, memorized and were tested on and they're damned lies, why do we make students memorize and regurgitate something we know is BS?!
Your link doesn't match any high school bio text book I've ever seen, for one thing that discussion on evolution is about 10 times as long as what's in real in use high school bio text books. It's really nice that ENSI wants that to be taught, but it's not what's getting taught. Real world high school evolutionary curriculum is 2 days long, one hour per day, here's Darwin, here's his boat, his natural selection, time to move on. It's worthless.
It's not a lie. It's called a simplified model that is correct within certain limitations and is useful for classical chemistry studies and careers. Please cite something that is FALSE that is taught.
It forms the basis for continued education. Learning the structure of the atom (classical) and the periodic table made future studies easier, not harder.
By your reasoning, we should not teach a person how to bake a cake without knowing differential equations.
I don't have much beef in this overall dispute, but I thought I'd mention that my high school evolutionary curriculum was about three weeks to a month long and I sure do hope things haven't slid downhill that much since then!