That presentation implies a linear sequence widely known, not just by Eldredge, to be wrong. He's saying exactly that. An old museum display is misleading.
Why is it misleading? Not because we know nothing, or because evolution didn't happen, but because we do positively know that the course of horse evolution was more complicated than what is presented in that display. It is this oversimplification and not the state of the evidence for horse evolution which Eldredge criticizes. I know you want to stay ignorant on this point, but you want it too badly.
You're using Evolutionary Logic again so I have to get us back in context.
He doesn't just call the display misleading. He calls the evidence for horse evolution that we teach our kids deplorable, speculative and one of the imaginary stories we have in the textbooks. Then he turns around and says this very same evidence is "a good example" of evolution. Whoops.
Please provide a reference from either the Sunderland or Chase interview where Eldredge says horse evolution is more complicated than what is presented in the display.