The Evolutionist's best defence is the fallacy of equivocation. That is, the use of ambiguous language in order to deceive or mislead the audience, or to avoid commitment to an undesirable belief or argument. All too often, Evolutionists will hear a perfectly valid refutation of Evolution and simply claim "you don't understand Evolution", failing to deal with the argument itself.
This is especially common with chemical Evolution. Chemical Evolution, as the name suggests, is a part of Evolution. It is the first step in the biological aspect of the myth. And indeed, even if Evolutionists really want to separate the two, they must believe that, at some point, life came from non-life. Life cannot evolve if life does not exist, which means even if you're going to claim chemical Evolution is not a part of Evolution, your religion still requires abiogenesis to be a fact.
But of course, abiogenesis is one of the most indefensible aspects of Evolution. By natural means, life cannot come from non life. God can do it, but He's not bound to natural law. But most Evolutionists don't have the added benefit of an omniscient, omnipotent deity. Indeed, the very point of Evolution is to explain origins without God. But it doesn't do a very good job, as abiogenesis was proven scientifically impossible by Louis Pasteur even before Origin of Species was published. To this day, all attempts to create life intelligently have failed. How can we be expected to believe random chance would do any better?
So it's no surprise that Evolutionists in the modern day try to distance themselves from chemical Evolution. This does not mean that Evolutionists in the past did the same. The definition of Evolution this ministry officially endorses (at least as far as it pertains to biology) comes from an Evolutionist named Gerald Kerkut, who said Evolution is "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form". He wrote this in 1960, and it is an unambiguous definition, as well as an adequate summary of the different views (at least as far as biology goes) between Creationists and Evolutionists.
So we see that when Evolutionists claim Creationists are ignorant of Evolution because we often dispute the feasibility of abiogenesis, they are not actually proving us ignorant, they are, at best, proving that they do not subscribe to a particular definition of Evolution, and tacitly admitting that they cannot defend what ultimately is a part of their worldview.
This is not a position I would personally like to be in. If my worldview had such a critical flaw in an important aspect that I would prefer to distance myself from that aspect, I simply would not attempt to defend that worldview, and would be making significant effort to find a new one. But Evolutionists, apparently, are fine with a view that literally contradicts science.
Of course, Christianity contradicts science in many ways too. Virgins don't give birth, water doesn't turn into wine, humans don't walk on water, and dead men do not rise. But literally the entire point of miracles is that they are something only God can do. The Creator of the universe has no trouble performing miracles within it, just like we can wind up clocks that don't wind themselves. But Evolution is not intended as a miracle. It's just unfortunate (for Evolutionists) that, by the known laws of the universe, it would have to be.
Whereas the most amazing miracle in Evolution would be abiogenesis, the most amazing miracle in Christianity is the resurrection. And unlike abiogenesis, this was witnessed by more than 500 people at one time, so I feel pretty safe in trusting the historical fact that it happened. This is convenient, because belief in the resurrection is what it takes to receive its effects. Through faith in the resurrection, and the confession of Jesus' Lordship, we can be fully reconciled to God, having all of our sins nailed to the cross, and inherit eternal life with Him.