Dear George,
Good to see you (and your essay) here.
"The most important property of time is that it unfolds. The present is different from both the past and future, which in turn are completely different from each other, the past being fixed and the future changeable. The present is the instant of transition between these two states. The time that is the present at this instant will be in the past at the next instant."
I feel like I may be begginning to repeat myself a little in this essay contest, but it can be shown that if instants (and instantaneous magnitudes) existed, motion and change would be impossible. Furthermore, as instants would constitute the building blocks of time, if they can't/don't exist, neither can time.
"But one thing is clear: both the entire Darwinian process of evolution through which we come into existence, and the processes by which we read this article, depend on the flux of time. You would not exist and have the ability to read this article if the view proposed here (and expounded in more detail in Ref. [6]) was not a correct description of the way things are."
That's not the case. Indeed, it would only apply if instants (and time) did exist. I agree that it does apply to the standard interpretation of block time, but this is also because of its assumption of the physical existence of instants, spatial points and space-time points (and as such, the resulting assumption of the existence of time, space, and space-time). As soon as one recognizes that instants, instantaneous magnitudes, space-time points etc, do not exist, however, motion and change become possible, and can be seen to be completely compatible with gr and the block view, with all times (those shown by a clock) sharing equal footing.
Also, in order for change to be possible, one does not need time to exist, as one only need motion. Indeed, I think that if one thinks carefully about it, it becomes apparent that it is motion that enables the hands of a clock to rotate and for one to represent an interval, rather than the other way around (the existence of time enabling motion). My essay (and notes) go into this further. I naturally agree that certain processes are not time reversible, but this is completely compatible with a timeless block view (if interpreted correctly). Moreover, it does not suggest at all that time flows.
Best wishes
Peter