One of the important aspects of an information age is the continual quest for new knowledge. That quest is only made possible by raising more and more detailed questions. That is, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out long ago, the process of normal science. Paradigm shifts occur when the process of normal science can no longer adequately answer the questions. Then, is it right to dismiss a theory simply because is does not explain every detail of the phenomena understudy? Sharon Begley, the Wall Street Journal's science writer thinks not (Yes, Evolution Still Has Unanswered Questions; That's How Science Is)
Advocates of teaching creationism (or its twin, intelligent design) have adopted the slogan, "Teach the controversy." That sounds eminently sensible. But it is disingenuous.
. . .
Gaps in knowledge? Of course. Every ongoing field of science has them. Physicists can't explain why elementary particles have the masses and other traits they do, but that doesn't invalidate the basic theory of matter. It just means scientists have to keep trying. Say "God did it" if you like, but that isn't science.
Evolution is as well-established by empirical observation as other sciences. There is no serious debate that evolution happens, only deeper questions (left to college and graduate school), such as whether it proceeds gradually or in spasms. "It's dishonest to single out evolution," Prof. Carroll says, "when the very nature of science is to have unresolved questions."