Naturally, the word evolutionists used to word “evolution” a lot, but the problem is they do not use it consistently. They often use it outside of biology with terms like cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, and chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is another term for abiogenesis, which is the idea of life spontaneously coming into existence from non-life. Because abiogenesis is an easy thermodynamic target, evolutionists often tried to separate it from universal common descent biological evolution even though you cannot have universal common descent without first getting the first living cell. However, the biggest problem is the tendency of evolutionists to use the word “evolution” in four different ways about biology. This is done to cause confusion between the four for the express purpose of applying evidence for the first three, to the fourth way they use it.
Sometimes evolutionists will simply tell you that evolution is just changes over time and that organisms do indeed change over time. Now, this is the strict dictionary definition of the word “evolution” and by this definition, we all individually evolve over our lifetimes. However, there is way more to the idea of biological evolution than this. In fact, it is not the idea of evolution that creationists would disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Any evolutionist who uses the word “evolution” in this manner within the context of biological evolution is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.
There are times when evolutionists will tell you that evolution is just changes in the frequency of gene varieties over time. Now while this is a legitimate biological usage of the term, most of the time when the word “evolution” is used particularly in the context of “the theory of evolution” it is not limited to this simplistic definition. Once again, this is a usage of the word “evolution” in the context of biology that creationists would not disagree with. When evolutionists use this tactic, they are trying to skirt the actual issue of universal common descent, which is where the real dispute is. Once again, using evolution the word “evolution” this way is just trying to avoid the real issue, by confusing it.
Yet another approach is to equate evolution and adaptation. Now adaptation does qualify as evolution under the two earlier definitions. However, it is not the full extent of what the theory of evolution refers to. It is true that as organisms of the same kind have diversified into different environments, they have developed new species, in the sense that they become isolated breeding populations. Interestingly enough if Charles Darwin had stopped there it would have been a legitimate scientific work. The problem is that he speculated not just about the origin of species but on the universal common ancestry of all living things. Evolutionists will routinely point to evidence of adaptation such as bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics and insects developing resistance to pesticides. However, in both cases, the resistance is a result of damage being done to the gene producing the particular enzyme that is being attacked by the antibiotic or pesticide. The enzyme in question does not work as well as it used to, but the resistant variety takes over because the nonresistant population is killed off. These results do not demonstrate the type of change that universal common descent requires for it to be viable.
The final way evolutionists used the word “evolution” is referring to the theory of evolution, which is specifically dealing with universal common descent. This is where the real disagreement is, this is also where actual science is departed from, and atheistic mythology takes over. The primary evidence put forward for the universal common descent of all life on Earth is physical and genetic similarities between different kinds of organisms. It ignores the fact that these similarities can be accounted for by a common designer. Furthermore, there is no degree of difference even between humans and chimps that would be considered evidence against common ancestry, which makes the entire notion unfalsifiable. Furthermore, it has never been demonstrated that natural selection or any other naturalistic process is capable of producing the new complex specific information that would have to come about for universal common descent to be correct. For example, fish do not have lungs but to have evolved into amphibians they would have had to develop them. Despite a lack of any evidence that this is even possible, universal common descent is used to interpret biological and fossil data in a matter that makes it look as if it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there is no actual evidence that it works.
Consequently, evolutionists used the word evolution in different ways to confuse the real issue. When talking with an evolutionist, it is necessary to ask them what they mean by evolution. Meanwhile, it is important for creationists to always clarify the word evolution so that they cannot twist what we are saying. When we furring to universal common descent, always use the term “universal common descent” or “universal common descent evolution.” Doing so will force the discussion to remain on the real topic of concern and not to get off on any of these other side points that result from evolutionist word games.