The problem with your second point is that the science is known to be in its infancy. We’re learning new things every day, and there are many big mysteries yet to be solved. They’ve been studying evolution for what? About 150 years yeah? I’m going to paraphrase Men In Black (yeah I know, bad movie to quote in a science thread but there’s a really good quote that explains the viewpoint). “A thousand years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the centre of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
We see evolution in (Human) behaviour, why can’t it exist in biology? The problem with the “young Earth” theory is that it doesn’t stand up to scientific inquiry either. But the difference between scientists and creationists is that scientists are always willing to entertain a new theory if it is supported by facts, creationists are not.
Ann Coulter hammers the evolution theory pretty convincingly in her latest book, “GODLESS”. Give it a read.
Poor analogy.
Humphreys' equations fairly well prove that the Earth is the center of the universe, give or take a few hundred thousand miles, but there has never been any serious belief that the Earth was flat held by any that navigated it's surface. No serious hiker could ever have held such a belief, since from as small a mountan as 3000 feet the curvature is plainly visible. School teacher talk is insipidly ignorant.
Science is taking us farther from evolution not closer to it. When we were ignorant it seemed like a believable theory. The more we learn about life at a molecular level the more foolish the theory becomes.