Bob, with respect, how is it possible to correct any error?
As far as my understanding goes, no scientist actually BELIEVES that individual animals "chose" to "evolve", not even that entire species made a "choice", no matter what ill-suited language they may use to describe things.
My youngest niece is a science teacher. She is not, however, a scientist. Demonstrating for a class (or having them demonstrate) experiments which are certain to come to the same result is not "science". And "theory" in science carries more weight than it does in colloquial use. There is a THEORY of gravity, yet nobody questions that gravity exists. Newton's THEORY was ultimately proved inadequate to describe the phenomenon, and Einstein's took over. Apparently, even his is considered to be lacking.
Scientists thought for a long time that atoms were the basic building blocks of matter. (This was after they thought that all physical things were made up of fire, water, air, and ether). Then they learned that atoms themselves were made of other particles. Now we are learning that these particles are made up of other particles. AND there is even open discussion on what makes up THESE particles. The worm-hole will never end, in my view, because our very language will not allow it--never mind our curiosity. Some of these things may even prove to be unknowable, even with all the energy of the universe.
All of these were THEORIES about the makeup of matter. Yet, not all of them were correct. But it was SCIENCE that discovered them and SCIENCE which disproved or amended them...all without the need to start from scratch and go back to believing that material things were made out of fire, water, air, and ether.
I could type till my fingers fell off. It won't do any good for any who think they get a "vote" in these matters.