The problematic of the issue is that you, as a layman, cannot discern the difference between Scientific information and a convincing-sounding bogus theory, as you are too undereducated/ignorant/dumb to understand the evidence. You can read the article about the evolution of bacterial flagellum(link elsewhere in the thread) as one example of evolutionary evidence and see whether or not you can reliably assess it to be fact or fiction. The fact is that there is a ####load of information and you simply cannot be an expert in everything, so you'll just have to take some information on belief basis.

The fact is that you'll either have to pick a theory you trust, educate yourself and research the evidence(this can take a few years, so this is not a viable option for the vast majority of fields of expertise) or contend to not knowing. There is a multitude of theories out there for any given field of expertise, but the one generally accepted by the Scientific community is usually your best bet to rely on being the correct one when you want to know something. You can count on those Scientists doing a lot of doubting before they accept a theory. Science goes forward, new information is gained and accepted theories change as new pieces of information are accepted.

Scientists know that they aren't omniscient. They just don't have any reason to believe the Creationist theories. Come up with something substancial with real evidence to back it up and they'll listen to you. "Team Evolution" is not incapable of admitting that they are not omniscient, they just haven't heard of a better theory yet.