Recapitulation of historical science in science curriculum

Just as mammal embryos recapitulate vertebrate evolution, going through stages of fish and reptile, some think that children would learn science, and all human knowledge, best if the students, from a young age through high school, recapitulated the important stages of progress in scientific understanding.

I hate this idea. Here's why:

• How do you pin a period of history to an age? Should 6 year olds be in the dark ages?
• Some ideas should just be skipped, or at best learned in the proper context, history.
• "Sorry kids, you're not old enough to know what I do" is the evilest thing a teacher can say.

For an example, see this Knol on Waldorf's approach to teaching "Western Civilization": http://knol.google.com/k/discover-waldorf-education-the-teaching-of-history

Why must there be an inverse relationship between how long ago something happened and how old someone must be to learn about it? Wouldn't it make just as much, if not more sense, to teach more ancient and distant and difficult-to-relate-to-now history to more mature students?

And how does recapitulation handle the tension between innovation and reproduction?

Alternatives to recapitulation

It should be considered whether these alternatives might mitigate issues with recapitulation, or issues with curriculum that may be attributed to an assumed need for recapitulation.

• Judge ideas individually by level of prerequisites, and sequence them appropriate to such levels. New ideas might not require their predecessors. Joule and Thompson's approach to the conservation of energy might not be a prerequisite for the study of the conservation of energy.