nbound responded most eloquently to your other points, but I really must take exception here.

It has not been thought for thousands of years that the Earth was flat. Eratosthenes blew the lid off that one in the third century BCE. And he got a pretty good estimate of its circumference. The very notion that the earth is flat crumbles the instant a person looks critically at the horizon, and it did. The case of the flat earth hypothesis actually demonstrates one of science's greatest strengths: the ability to discard faulty theories in favor of new ones when evidence comes along that that theory cannot account for. The flat earth hypothesis was discarded practically as soon as it was possible to investigate it critically.

Geocentrism, also, hasn't been taken seriously by anyone who critically looked at it for the last two thousand years. Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric model in the third century BC. Islamic astronomers were questioning geocentrism as soon as they started looking carefully at Ptolemy's claims- notably, Ibn al-Haytham in his Doubts concerning Ptolemy.

In both cases, the evidence was flimsy and the ideas were discarded early in the development of civilization. You ought also to realize that, at least in geocentrism's case, the conclusion drawn was based off of aesthetics and little else. The idea of the Earth at the center of everything and the heavens proceeding in a nice, orderly fashion was a holdover from Aristotle, who I'm certain meant well but absolutely did not have the ability to double-check that.

Science is most certainly an imperfect venture, like anything humans do, but in the few centuries that formalized scientific inquiry has been around, it has advanced human knowledge and technology farther than any other field of study had before it. A theory that has a track record like evolution (amazing explanatory power, a convergence of evidence from diverse fields to back it up, and a versatile mathematical model that almost anybody can understand) and is pretty much agreed upon by the entire scientific community except for details (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism comes to mind).

For one, "we" don't get better. We have the genes we were born with. We are not constantly getting better.

Also, life in general is not constantly evolving to become better beings. The best that can be said is that the current crop of species are simply the ones that fared the least horribly by occupying their respective ecological niches. That's all that evolution really predicts.

By the way, do you have any evidence to support your claim that we are getting physically sicker and experiencing worse mental and physical ills than any other time period in history? I don't seem to recall anybody mentioning explosives as being part of evolutionary biology. I hope you're not confusing a laughably poor understanding of the Big Bang with the theory of evolution.