Same as
>>16
To answer
>>1 it is necessary to come to terms with the state of the teaching of evolution as it currently stands.
Because of the level of understanding - high school standard - information has to be simplified. Parallels can be drawn in other subjects, such as physics. In high schools people are taught Newtonian physics because it is exhaustive at that standard. Within the parameters what is taught more than suffices. Nevertheless, students who take senior-level physics subjects are also taught that what they learnt before is too simple a model - and are introduced to more advanced concepts. Nowhere, however, does a student's education come into conflict with up-to-date scientific studies; all the contentious principles are far more advanced. It also must be said theoretical physics as a scientific discipline is rigorous, well tested and open-minded to alternatives.
Darwinism as a theory is not as rigorous, well-tested or open-minded to alternatives by a long shot. What is taught in high schools, though appropriate to the standard that is required of students, is often STILL IN FIERCE CONTENTION in scientific circles. Schools are teaching material that has NOT been clearly established on scientific study.
When comparing theoretical physics to Darwinism it is clear to see that theories differ greatly in their strength. That a study is theory or not is not a good indicator of scientific validity. What should be taught is the nature of the different disciplines in an objective light so that disciplines with strong or weak theories are shown to be such.
Evolution is an insightful theory, and far stronger scientifically that Creationism (which is pseudo-religion).
Religion is such a sensitive issue it is best left out of the curriculum. However, as a valid and scientific alternative to Creationism, Intelligent Design should be taught, to better put the current state of knowledge more accurately.