[Physicist]

Are you really trying to compare evolutionary theory -- which its proponents admit is still up in the air in many respects -- to the heliocentric solar system?

Absolutely. The fact that animals change over time is no more disputable than the fact that the sun sits (approximately) at the center of the solar system. The gaps in the detailed models of both are comparable in seriousness. As one example of a gap in the heliocentric model, I give you the long-term stability of planetary orbits. How does that occur? There are several good ideas, but that's a far from settled point.

[JohnnyZ]

The fact that animals change over time is no more disputable than the fact that the sun sits (approximately) at the center of the solar system.

You have redefined the issue to support your contention.

Originally you put up the entire theory of evolution against the heliocentric nature of the solar system -- or so I interpreted your post, and perhaps I was mistaken in your intent -- and now you're talking about "animals changing over time" and the entire scope of planetary motion.

How does that occur? There are several good ideas, but that's a far from settled point.

Precisely, teach the theory, the good ideas, and make it clear what is solid and what is speculative.

[inquest]

As one example of a gap in the heliocentric model, I give you the long-term stability of planetary orbits.

How is that any more a gap in the heliocentric model than in the geocentric?

For that matter, why is that even a gap at all? What would cause the orbits to be unstable?