I suppose if you consider astrology to be a body of knowledge, that pretty much says it all.
There are popular writings about evolution that indeed sound circular in their reasoning. I will grant you that. But there are also dreadfully written articles and books about physics and mathematics.
And religion.
If you wish to score points by picking apart straw men, go for it.
I used quotation marks around the word "knowledge." And no, my assertion that astrology contains a certain amount of "knowledge" does not "say it all." If you believe evolutionism can admit reasonable conjecture to the table and still be called "science" in the strict sense, then you had best be ready to understand there are other fields of knowledge that indulge reasonable conjecture that may wish to receive the same title.
Evolutionism wants to eat its cake and still have it. It wants to enjoy an air of scientific certitude while it indulges conjecture to the hilt, yet refrains from direct observation and testing in real time. Evolutionism beats creationism to the punch in introducing unscientific notions into the classroom. Way to go!