I'm SO glad you asked...
The way that science is being taught in the U.S. (and indeed, in much of the West) is abysmal. Theory may be well tested, but it is still theory. Fact is fact, a documented occurrence or artifact. A bone in my hand is a fact. The DNA from that bone is a fact. These facts are able to support theory, but in true science theory is supposed to follow fact - theory should not "shut out" fact simply because is does not fit the model theory which has been adopted. This is most evident in the "global warming" theory which has been put forward as fact, taught as fact, and embraced as fact, facts be damned. In reality, any science which might accompany the debate on global warming is nullified by the dogma of having adopted a theory without searching for the facts - even if the facts do NOT support one's pet theory.
The study of climatology would be far better off if we could really look at the facts and and develop theory from them, rather than push a pet theory and dismiss all facts but the ones that support the pet theory. So too it is with any science. My mother is a physicist, my father is an engineer, so let me eludicate: this has always been a problem. The study of physics has become bogged down over the years because of the pet theories of one person or another, when in reality the data is so rich right now that one perhaps should spend less time defending theory and more time developing it from the data coming in. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that antiquated theories developed over the last century in physics are blown away when one factors in deep space phenomena. (On the other hand, when approached with an open mind, it is amazing how many times early physicists were right on the money!)
Likewise, in Engineering, specifically with the space program, much grief has been caused by agendas interfering with good engineering - it is difficult to design a space craft with maximum safety for human beings when the primary concern of the agency is to embrace "green" foams designed to fit in with faulty greenhouse gas/aerosol theories advanced by ecologists.
In medicine, it is hard to advance the common good of millions in the third world when the ruling bodies ban DDT and deny first world technologies to third-worlders because of faulty global warming theory. Science suffers when dogma takes over.
So too it is with evolution. Linear evolution is being challenged in the field, but you would never know it in the classrooms. Early hominid lines are stretching back further and further, and the indications are of parallism in evolution rather than linearism. So why is it that this is not being taught? Why is it that this information is disavowed in favor of outdated, antiquated theory? It is because it is easier to teach dogma than it is to teach science. If science is truly the goal, then the fossils should be laid upon the table, and theory should be matched with the facts - THEN the facts can be matched with theory if science supports that.
We are doing this in some areas, most specifically with genetic studies. The reason? It is a new science, and the discoveries are rolling in so fast that it is almost impossible to put forward a static, unchanging view of DNA, genetic mutation, or genetic manipulation. If we did so, and did not allow and further discussion of new and challenging material, it would be the end of the science of gene manipulation - and it would spell the death of genetic research.
This has happened to origin studies in Biology. Anything relating to the study of early hominids is relegated to dogma - it must fit with the officially held view, and none must question or introduce anything that challenges linear evolution. In higher circles, any whiff of deviation from the official view is met with censorship, even though new discoveries and new ways of envisioning the development of Man might advance the theory of Evolution in new and unusual ways. So paranoid is this line of thought, my discussion of the theory of Evolution here was considered to be "anti-science" even though, in truth, I consider myself to be an aficionado of anthropology and an amateur paleontologist.
I object to antiquated, outdated, and frankly sometimes wrong information being presented as science simply because it has become "official". The day that governments take an "official" position on science, and stifle discussion or discovery, is the day science dies...
They have killed any discussion on anything but the official position of evolution, and in doing so, have turned the science of Origin into dogma.