Now there's the problem. Half correct there; the more we learn with science helps us understand less and less about MORE and MORE things (if you get my meaning). But you can't say that EVERYTHING is unkown. We base "knowing" off of demonstrable evidence and manifestation of hypotheses. Example: I KNOW that when I drop a ball it will fall down to the ground. How? Gravity. I know it. (see?
Now when we have MORE evidence (which you can even observe for yourself if you're interested) for evolution than we do for gravity. You can't accuse scientists of "making stuff up" just like religious leaders and different holy books. It can NEVER happen. The whole point of having scientific knowledge recognized is PEER REVIEW. Before anybody can accept your "new knowledge" on something, TONS of OTHER scientists have to take your experiements and try them SEPARATELY and TEST them out to see if they are true. No scientific knowledge is considered to be "true" in the sense you think of unless it has stood up to the scrutiny of SCORES of scientists from around the world. To claim that THEY are the ones making stuff up is absurd.
Everything is NOT unkown. It is only unkown to people that.... don't know (duh) !!!
To KNOW, you have to LEARN. So the only way to do that is research and find the "knowledge" you seek for yourself.
We may never know the biggest mysteries, but we HAVE solved a great many important ones by our understanding of the universe. IF it does in fact turn out that "everything" is unkown, then the universe wouldn't really exist. The only way we can tell that ANYTHING exists is by observation. And by our observations we see consistency. That is, the things we learn continually with scientific discovery just goes to FURTHER build up this model of the universe that we CAN understand.
EVERYBODY can truly know; everything that is POSSIBLE to know is an attainable goal for those willing to try.