[ClearCase_guy]

Their point is that science has adjusted in light of new data. This is a bad thing, according to creationists.

Not at all. But some scientists have questions about evolution. There's nothing wrong with questions, right? Science feeds off questions, yes?

Well, some folks think that "teaching the controversy" about evolution makes some sense. Note: That doesn't mean teaching the Bible in science class. And it doesn't mean teaching Creationism. It just means teaching students that some scientists question some of the assumptions of evolution.

But the idea of "teaching the controversy" can be very off-putting for some folks. There is no controversy! It's true! We know it's true1 There's consensus!

But when a huge, well-established event like the Permian Extinction can be called into question by new data, shouldn't scientists be open to the idea that some of their other ideas may also be open to question as well? Why is it so terrible to teach the controversy?

[atlaw]

I'm all for teaching actual controversies in science. What specific controversy regarding evolutionary theory do you have in mind, and what specifically would you like to see taught as the “weaknesses of evolution” (the phrase usually employed in conjunction with “teach the controversy”)?