NoShips, I stated in my initial remark post "What you seem to be avoiding is the dual perspective with which we can view knowledge." You still seem to be avoiding it.
Here is an analogy I have used successfully with students to give them confidence to admit that there are things the don't know and to view this as a positive thing, not a negative thing. I begin with the sphere analogy.
Consider that what you know is defined by a sphere. The surface of the sphere is where your knowledge contacts your ignorance. It is where you glimpse, for the first time, the knowledge and understanding that are just beyond your reach - at least without effort to extend the sphere.
Your ignorance is defined by the surface area of the sphere. These are the things you know you do not know. As you learn more and extend the sphere, its surface area increases. Consequently your ignorance increases.
I set myself the goal of being more ignorant at the end of the day than I was at the beginning. If you are unable to appreciate the perspective I am using in this analogy then we are likely doomed to be talking past each other.
Back to evolutionary theory, Eclogite. Can experts in the field claim knowledge or not? If yes, then they're not ignorant as you claim.
They can certainly claim knowledge. They can also claim ignorance. If they could not claim ignorance there would be nothing left for them to research.
Last question, Eclogite: how do you personally rate the probability of evolutionary theory, as it stands right now, being true?
That depends very much on the granularity of the theory. Do I think terrestrial life exhibits a nested hierarchy of common descent developed through natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift and other factors? Yes. Do I think we have a solid grasp on all the other factors. No.
That is to say, we have considerable knowledge about evolution, but we also have large areas of ignorance. This dual perspective seems to be a problem for you. Why?