Huh? Combustion is taught using the simplifies Bohr model of the atom which you said was inaccurate and over-simplified. In order to understand combustion correctly, you have to understand the Schrodinger Wave theory and Eienstein's Conservation of Mass and Energy principles. Do you? You know, that old E=MC2 stuff? Mass defects? I am sure you understand all this, right?
Combustion is taught as a chemical reaction, we never screwed around with Bohr models learning combustion, just a simple matter of what chemicals are present that make something combustible and what chemicals are emitted during combustion.
there you go again, taking things to far. I'm not demanding COMPLETE teaching, only teaching that lacks LIES. Once more for the logic impared:
Simplification by omission - perfectly acceptable
Simplification by substitution -lies
No lies in the class room. Kids can learn combustion without having to learn about Schrodingers Wave and Conservation of Mass, well they need to learn a little about conservation of mass but not much. What they shouldn't learn about combustion is a post dated theory that we now know is bunk. There's no reason to learn combustion via phlogiston or Bohrs model, because neither of them is actually learning.