Kant wasn't wrong about our innate sense of geometry. Our innate sense of geometry is Euclidean. At least, you can't say that it isn't - because the error of our innate representation is MUCH larger than the difference between Euclidean geometry and the Universe's geometry.
A mushy intuition that is equally consistent with a lot of geometries, including Euclid's, is not an intuition of Euclidean geometry. Beside, Euclid's 5th postulate was long considered problematic. How innate is that?
I've often wished for a list of cases where philosophy has proven useful, or has at least anticipated science in drawing correct conclusions. Here's one for the list:
The June 18 2010 Science has two very similar articles on how rat brains represent space. Both conclude that the brain already represents space as a grid before rat pups take their first steps into the world. Both make the point that this validates Kant's claim that space is an innate concept prior to experience.
(The next task is to make a corresponding list of cases where philosophers made incorrect conclusions; and estimate whether the number of correct conclusions is greater than chance.)