One common theme in religion is that words often mean different, even polar opposite things between them. For example, take the word "grace". In Christianity, salvation is by grace. Grace is a reward where punishment would be more appropriate. I'm a sinner, I deserve God's wrath, but by God's grace, Jesus receives my punishment, and so I receive His reward instead. (Unbelievers, this gift is available for you to claim at any point between now and your death).
By Biblical definition, you cannot be saved by both grace and works at the same time. If you're saved by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. That's literally in the Bible, I copied and pasted Romans 11:6.
But in Catholicism, and a host of other pseudo-Christian religions, salvation is still said to be by grace. The problem? Their version of grace is not mutually exclusive with works, but rather, they believe grace is handed out piecemeal, through works. So, both Christians and Catholics believe salvation is by grace, it's just that "grace" means something different in Catholicism than Christianity. If you're a Christian, this makes it near impossible to reason with a Catholic up front. There is a language barrier that must first be overcome, and if you don't overcome it, it looks almost like they believe the same thing you do.
Evolutionists behave in a similar way. They have a number of words that mean a completely different thing in their religion than it does to the rest of the world. Words like "evidence", "science", "scientist", and even "Evolution", all mean completely different things in the Evolutionist religion, at least as far as it pertains to apologetics. What's worse is that Evolutionists have no intention, neither do they really have the ability, of lowering this language barrier.
As I originally wrote this article, I was involved in a Creation vs. Evolution debate group. In the group, I proposed a solution to the language barrier by suggesting the group should agree on a single definition of Evolution. I even made a proposal, which was something along the lines of "the naturalistic and gradual theory of origins as opposed to the one found in Genesis". This definition is unambiguous, it adequately encompasses the main Evolution myths, and it adequately distinguishes between Evolution and Creationism. I then put it out into the air, asking for constructive criticism from both sides. The first response? "Black and white fallacy!"
Now, any logical thinker can tell you that you can't make a fallacy if you don't make an argument. But ok, clearly the Evolutionists didn't want me defining their religion for them. So, let's pass the mic to the Evolutionists. In 1960, Gerald Kerkut defined the "general theory of Evolution" as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." Excellent! It doesn't include cosmic or stellar Evolution, but at least it gives us a solid and clear definition of Evolution that covers both chemical and biological Evolution. So, why shouldn't we use Kerkut's definition?
Simple answer? It takes away Evolution's greatest defence: The fallacy of equivocation. See, Evolutionists prefer to be vague. So vague, in fact, that they can accuse anyone who presents a half decent case against their religion of not understanding it. But when they try to define it, they give an ambiguous definition that I have only ever met one Creationist who would actually deny it; "change over time", or "descent with modification". So, when do we get to the humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps? Only when it's convenient for the Evolutionist.
Evolutionary apologetics is a language game. They fool people into believing Evolution in the same way the Catholic Church tricks people into thinking it's a legitimate Christian denomination: by using the right words at the right time. But as I showed at the beginning of this article, Christians are incapable of doing the same. See, whereas Catholicism places its authority in the ever-changing statements of its Church, and Evolutionists have a non-existent authority structure that basically allows individual Evolutionists to pick and choose what they believe and when, Christianity has a solid, permanent, incontrovertible authority: The Bible.
The Bible dictates every Christian view from Creationism to eschatology. When we say an atheist doesn't understand Creationism, we don't just fold our arms and point up our noses, we have the advantage of showing exactly where the Bible says they're wrong about our position.
Going back to the original example from Catholicism, we can show definitively that the Catholic faith is wrong. Yes, they might say they believe salvation is by grace, but as we showed with Romans 11:6, they can't possibly. In reality, when the Bible says we are saved by grace, it means Jesus paid the full penalty for all of our sins, and so we can receive the reward for all of His righteousness. Effectively, He stood before God as if He was us, and so we stand before God as if we were Him. Evolution cannot do what Christianity does. It cannot define itself as solidly, and it cannot save the soul. Evolution is a cult. Christianity is a restored relationship with the God who created our kind, and paid the full price for its errors.