Can you name one? Yes, the ancient Egyptians developed applied geometry, and the Hindus worked on other mathematics and astronomy. But the huge advance in science occurred from Christians starting about the 15th century onward. How is that any argument for evolution? We have human deliberation in the center of that, not a random process. Or are you more partial to the evolutionary theory of Lamarck, where the changes come from species life experience?

Very groovy. Iliya Prigogine, back in the 1970s, made the point that natural processes can produce pockets of decreased entropy (I think I made that point), but about as far as that can be applied, is to justify the existence of life at all (Earth sitting in a stream of energy flow). The rest of the arguments are hand-waving without any mechanism for increasing the information content of a living being (i.e., reducing entropy). There is a formal correspondence between information and thermodynamics, as explained by Claude Shannon. It is one of the foundations of modern communication theory and gives the insight that information processing will always require power to drive it, and you can't get power without entropy being increased. But there is no mechanism to cause genetic patterns spontaneously to become more complex, so the argument does not connect with reality. If evolution is supposedly mediated by mutations, it turns out that mutations are generally destructive of genetic information and have never been observed to produce "better" living beings. (The idea that thermodynamics does not apply to living beings is quite false. There is thermodynamics in the conventional chemical sense, via metabolism. And there is information in the genetic code, which also is subject to thermodynamics, through the increase of information in the code.)

Information is rare stuff. It is not conserved. It can be destroyed, never to return. Some people have the mistaken idea that "no information is ever destroyed." Nothing is easier in this harsh universe.

If you were serious and genuinely wanted to learn, you would have taken lots of thermodynamics in university and kept your eyes open for the likes of Prigogine and Shannon. This is all very amusing, in consideration of the fact that no one has any idea how the first form of life arose. Lots of ideas about how it might have evolved, but clueless as to how it was there in the first place. So, evolution has to invoke the assumption of "First, there was Life."

Also, if you were concerned about scientific integrity you would be concerned if someone's personal history was putting a thumb on the scales of his scientific judgement. Are you aware of Lamarck's theory of evolution? It has more logical appeal, but no mechanism.