[cracker]

And it's not like it's entirely without precedent to teach theory "B" in part by pointing to the flaws of its predecessor, theory "A" (and how "B" solves 'em). For example, I still recall learning in astronomy class about the problems with the circular planetary orbits hypothesized by Copernicus leading Kepler to formulate his laws (and theorize that planets had elliptical orbits).

In that sense, it would make sense to teach evolution in the context of 18th and 19th century conceptions of the universe as a clockwork whose laws are knowable to scientific examination. Evolution would be prefaced by a discussion of the state of the life and geological sciences previous to Darwin. This sort of chronological approach would make clear how long evolution has been central to biology, and would also illustrate how many later challenges and discoveries have strengthened the theory (DNA, plate tectonics, etc.)>

Yet this would all take away time from discussions of photosynthesis, cell structure, anatomy, frog dissections, and the other frequent topics of middle school and high school biology.

[Iota]

Yet this would all take away time from discussions of photosynthesis, cell structure, anatomy, frog dissections, and the other frequent topics of middle school and high school biology.

True, but similar to what I said before, nobody's seriously disputing what the various animal body parts are called, where they're located, etc. In that respect, evolution differs from the rest of the biology curriculum.