The concept of knowledge or knowing is inherently teleological. How can you actually know with certainty that something will occur before it has actually occurred. Knowing absolutely is the province of an Oracle. A lot of thought over the ages has been given to ways of sidestepping the teleological problem, but it is always there waiting to bite the unwary researcher. The 20th Century has left us searching for a satisfactory concept of what actually constitutes knowledge. See, for example,
this

RE Post Sputnik’s pejorative remark, focusing on current evolutionary theory, it has some holes. It is perfectly acceptable in science to say "we don't know how that piece of the puzzle works." But because of militant atheism, that rational admission is rejected in favor of dogmatic insistence of perfect knowledge so as to oppose the "Christianists." The irony being that if the (Neo) Darwinists didn't push their absolute knowledge claims as far as they do, the "Christianists" wouldn't push back with such fervor. The two sides are locked in a positive feedback relationship, waiting to see which overheats and seizes up first. I'd bet on the rationalists seizing first; faith provides a deeper cushion to break a fall.

Consider the following idea: A theory of history would attempt to understand the content and ideas that constitute a particular culture through the different human institutions that they manifest. Such institutions are regarded as the external representation of the culture’s hidden, inner motives and beliefs. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that the only thing that can be objectively grasped about a culture is the way it expresses its values in particular types of institutions which it then sustains for some time. In this context, it is useful to picture the evolution of the West as the evolution of its institutions in competition with each other. That which describes the competition of institutions within a culture would describe the development of its civilizations as a whole.