In fact, if anything is MOST like the Flat Earth theory, I'd have to say it's the religious belief that "life is so complicated that God MUST have created it" -- it correlated pretty close to the same vague idea that "The Earth is flat because it LOOKS like it's flat."
The flat earth theory was the general layperson's "common sense" view on what the earth must be shaped like. Currently, that similar style of thought is held by the side that believes in a creator... and the claim is basically, "It's self-evident."
Evolution theory is actually the side that collected all the data and challenged the predominating notion (i.e., the religious perspective) and continues to collect data and makes observations and then actually tests the theories in modern research and product design. Evolutionary principles are already being regularly used in order to develop new antibiotics, for example; the sharp arc in technological capability are allowing use to crunch more and more copious quanties of data and thus actually try to apply evolutionary principles.
So that's why your comments come across as somewhat empty and uninformed, I guess. You're making a very broad layperson's case for why evolution should be categorized differently just on the "But we don't know" principle, where actually you're ignoring copious amounts of research, data, and practice that validates evolutionary principles even if there is no way we can actually have sat there and observed millions of years of evolutionary change. It sort of reminds me of the solipsist argument -- "How do you know that you're not just a figment of my imagination and don't actually exist?" Just because you can make a statement like that that cannot be disproved doesn't mean it's anywhere close to the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn, but you're giving weight to an idea that can't be validated versus one that is continually under validation.
We also can trust that evidence will eventually win out and that the theory will correct itself not based on evidenceless assertion but when enough data is accumultaed to refute the theory's claims. Ideas that cannot be checked and validated (like the solipsist argument I mentioned above) just really have no bearing on the dialog.