If God created all the good things around us then it means he created all EVIL too

[Asmodee]

… these people were not more learned, more intelligent or more wise than the great minds of the 20th century or today.  In fact, in every case, they are less learned, less intelligent and less wise, without exception

-my emphasis-

I'm not saying ancient peoples were necessarily stupid.  There were some great minds in the past.  That is absolute fact...I stand by my claim that ancient peoples are unlikely to have any "knowledge" which is very impressive today.  

You may have inadvertently contradicted yourself.

No, I did not.  "Less learned, less intelligent and less wise" does not mean "stupid".  You can have a great mind which is simultaneously "less great" than a greater mind.

But I do understand what you are trying to say, i.e. people of the past had less knowledge available to them than today. The natural science of the ancient world was crude and often wrong. That does not change the fact that natural science, mathematics, and philosophy are separate domains. The field of mathematics has progressed since ancient times, but the proofs of Euclid and Pythagoras (your example) have not changed. They are just as applicable today as they were in 500 BC. The same is true in philosophy. The classical logic in Aristotle’s ‘Prior Analytics’ is still used. Only further philosophy can revise a prior a philosophical position, not biology, nor psychology, nor history, nor economics, nor even physics.

The same is not true for philosophy.  There are no right or wrong answers in philosophy.  It's just ideas.  Mathematics by nature has definite, unquestionable right and wrong answers.  Comparing philosophy to mathematics to show relevance is like comparing a watch to a flagellum to show design.  The two have very little in common.

And I disagree that only philosophy can revise prior philosophy, especially when that philosophy tries to dictate what is reality.  Philosophy is not, after all, a way to "prove" knowledge.  It is the study of the nature of knowledge.  You cannot prove anything with philosophy.  So when someone makes a claim that they can philosophically prove some reality, they have very much entered into the realm of science, the actual study of all of reality.  They are on science's turf, so yes, biology and physics rule the roost in that area.

As for the "logic" of the past, most of what you bring up comes from a time before logic was formalized.  And again, it's philosophical logic, not "reality" logic.  It's like making a wish to a genie.  If you get the wish just right, if you don't leave any room for interpretation or argument, you'll get exactly what you want and the genie can't take liberties and, say, give you a million dollars, but money stolen from a drug dealer who is now coming for you.  That is what these philosophical ideas are trying to do.  They're trying to word things just right to force their point to be true.  It just doesn't work that way.