I can say with certainty that EVERY science text throughout history has been wrong about something.
Okay, so what is the big deal about being wrong on evolution? How is it worse than getting the phases of the moon wrong? Or thinking that bronze oxidizes green like copper? Or having conflicting statements in the same paragraph? How can one error be judged so much more stringently when a survey of texts concludes:
Not one of the books we reviewed reached a level that we could call "scientifically accurate" as far as the physical science contained therein. The sheer number of errors precludes such a designation. [Source]
So the big deal about this must be anti-religious sentiment. A lawyer should take on the case and present the sheer number of very obvious scientific errors, along with outdated and discredited theories currently being presented as fact in scientific texts the UC system accepts. It would be a pretty easy religious discrimination case.