There is no reason to believe, in practice or in principle, that this ever has happened or could happen in the scientific community. If you have a specific example in mind that would change my mind about that, then you're welcome to share it with me, but at this point your argument just sounds like "science could make wrong decisions, so we can't trust anything anyone says about evolution", which is hardly compelling.
Science depends on conflicting points of view. The scientific system wouldn't work if what you're describing actually happened.
My observation isn't leveled at Evolution specifically, but at the process in general, so Evolution is implicated as part of it. With the exception of the lightly supported Panspermia model for Life on Earth, the theories of Abiogenesis and early Evolution are heavily dependent on the initial conditions provided by Cosmology and Geology. I don't know how it can be argued otherwise. The uniformitarian view of our solar system evolution is mostly based on the circum-stellar disc model. It's not necessary to go into all the details, but if the overall view of the evolution of the solar system changes (there are many holes in the current model), then that directly translates to other theories. (Note: High level aspects of Evolution like micro vs macro evolution probably wouldn't change much, just the specific development and path for the first few billion years on Earth)
If you want another example, take the physics model for the theory of the structure of the Atom. It has changed many times over the last few centuries and even more during the last 120 years. They still haven't fully settled on it, yet different disciplines use different physical models to explain phenomena. Ask an electrical engineer or physicist to explain the flow of electricity or ionization. They will most likely use the orbiting electron "bead" model to explain how an electron moves from one atom to the next or leaves a nucleus to make it ionized. Yet, that physical model has fallen out of favor long ago. Then, ask a Chemist to explain chemical bonding between molecules and they will describe it as a "shell" or p-orbital with wavelike functions. They cannot explain bonding with descrete orbiting "beads". They are two radically different physical interpretations. They can't both be correct. If we ever do settle on an atomic structure that can rationally explain ionization and chemical bonding with the same physical interpretation, that will necessarily cause all other disciplines to re-evaluate theories.
Who said anything about discrediting it? Pursuant to the OP, I've only been arguing that it is better that we teach children how to think, not what to think. This has nothing to do with discrediting consensus science, but ensuring people do no blindly accept what they are told.Seems best to teach them both how to think, and the conclusions that other people who thought the same way came to in the past. Would you argue that instead of being told about the atom, protons, neutrons and electrons, children are just let loose in a chemistry lab and told to "figure it out for themselves"?
Being told about atoms, protons and neutrons (or any other object) is not a conclusion. You simply point to one, or draw a mockup of one and say what it is. The student can then see what it physically is with their own eyes. You then rationally explain how it interacts with other objects. This is called theory, and students use their critical thinking to gain understanding.
Teaching a conclusion would just be telling a student that a Proton is positive and an Electron is Negative. That doesn't mean anything without explaining how they interact. Similarly, teaching Creationism (as is) would be teaching a conclusion, because it is little more than just saying God did it. That isn't a theory, that is a statement. A theory would have to rationally explain the process.
They are reference points, not boundary conditions. By your argument, every scientific endeavor must start from scratch; assume NOTHING is true? Before a kid can study physics, he must first prove, for example, that gravitational acceleration on earth is 9.81 m/s^2? He must re-invent calculus himself, or can he trust Newton's works?
Mathematics deals exclusively with concepts. It is a tool used to describe dynamic concepts. You establish axioms and then use logic to move from one state to the next. This has nothing to do with teaching conclusions, it is a process.