I thought about that, but then my experience on FR has taught me that those who challenge evolution seldom believe in physics, chemistry, astronomy or geology.
Perhaps it would be more productive to teach geology in hih school instead of biology.
Critical analysis of assumptions that lead to questions such as "what is science, what is theory" may be relegated to higher education. (I personally resisted that, as I recall, already in kindergarten when I began the analyzing the problems in my thinking produced by the practical necessity of adopting assumptions uncritically).
Still, benchmarks or outcomes are not simply pedagogical decisions. A political aspect becomes apparent when we see how the simple skill of reading has taken second place in elementary education. It is another example that somebody might hesitate to call education.
Odd thing, the methodology of criticism itself will eventually come under scrutiny when anybody is pressed to seriously decide what consitutes a legitimate challenge. Post-modern criticism of modernism has not been kind to the natural progress of anything. It negates. Not good for education. Of course, the idea that a quantitative benchmark such as the MOST evidence does have a practical, demotic appeal. With it the singular occurence is given short-rift--and easily relegated to the un-natural.