Ambiguity is an apologist's worst nightmare, and a dishonest apologist's best friend. It allows for a fallacy known as "equivocation". That is, the use of ambiguous language in order to deceive or distract. Many words have multiple meanings. Heart, for example. Heart can mean the organ pumping blood through an organism's body, but it can also mean the centre of an object, location, or issue, as well as be a metaphorical description of the desires or emotions of an individual. When we say someone has a "broken heart", we typically mean they're deeply emotionally hurt. Is it a crime to break someone's heart? Not if you do so by turning down their marriage proposal, but if you do it with a knife or a bullet, you're going to jail.
In the same way, "Evolution" has multiple meanings. It would be a fallacy to say "Evolution is false because Pokémon don't exist". While it is true that the transition of life stages in Pokémon is called Evolution, this is not Evolution as it is meant at any stage in the origins debate. But how exactly is Evolution meant in the origins debate? The answer to this really depends on who you ask, and when you ask them.
Officially, Bible Brain endorses the definition of Evolution found in Gerald Kerkut's "Implications of Evolution". In this book, which is available online in the public domain, Kerkut distinguishes between what he calls the "special" and "general" theories of Evolution. The "special" theory of Evolution is actually common ground for both Creationists and Evolutionists. With the exception of a few fringe radicals, everyone, from Evolutionists like Charles Darwin, to the Creationists he plagiarised, like Edward Blyth, have always believed that "...many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed."
This information has been known to mankind for as long as we have engaged in animal husbandry. Even the Bible touches on diversification in the very first book. This makes the whole "change over time" definition wholly inadequate for discussing origins. It may well be useful for discussing the origins of chihuahuas and great danes, but it tells us nothing about where dogs came from in the first place.
But Kerkut continues to say "On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." This is where Creationists and Evolutionists actually differ. This is not a simple comment about change, but actually the type of change, as well as with reference to our supposed common ancestor, and its supposed origins. Evolutionists believe all living organisms share a common ancestor, Creationists don't. Evolutionists believe in abiogenesis, Creationists don't. Kerkut's statement here is a useful definition of Evolution as it pertains to the origins debate, and so Bible Brain officially endorses it. Evolutionists, on the other hand, rarely do.
For some of them, the simple reason is its reference to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis, being so indefensible, is not something most Evolutionists enjoy the task of defending, and so even though it is called "chemical Evolution" (and of course, it's impossible for a living organism to evolve if it doesn't exist, and life had to come from somewhere), most Evolutionists prefer to distance themselves from it. This is understandable, as I wouldn't want to defend such a silly idea either, but given that they still believe it, even this reasoning is strange, and somewhat telling.
Ultimately, the motivations for rejecting Kerkut's definition come from Kerkut himself, in the very same extract. He tells us "...the evidence that supports it (the General Theory of Evolution) is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla."
Of course, in reality, the evidence that was available even in Kerkut's day wasn't even strong enough to consider Evolution a working hypothesis. Darwin himself presented numerous objections to it, and those objections continue to render Evolution impossible. The evidence does not show that the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla, but obviously, there is evidence that changes bring about speciation.
Now, I'm not saying, and would not say, that all Evolutionists are intentionally dishonest. We live in a culture where we've been fed the same nonsense from our youth by people who have been fed the same nonsense from their youth. Evolutionary indoctrination is a systemic problem for us. Nevertheless, there is a clear motivation to equivocate the "general" theory of Evolution with the "special" theory of Evolution (which I personally refuse to call Evolution for sake of clarity). It is easy to show that two species of moths, tetras, flies, dogs, or any other species Evolutionists feel like bringing up on a given day, share a common ancestor. Showing that all of these organisms share a common ancestor, on the other hand, is nigh impossible. The deck is stacked against the idea.
But here's my question: Why waste time arguing over what we already believe? The special theory of Evolution is not only accepted by Creationists, we actually wrote about it before Darwin. It's the general theory we dispute, and so while it is nigh impossible to defend at all, Evolutionists must learn to start defending it separately.
Knowing that such was not possible in his time, Kerkut continued "The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."
This is where Kerkut slipped up, as unless he meant "millions of years in the future", no amount of "future experimental work" will show that new phyla even could arise via speciation, much less that it actually did. But he is right in that dogmatic assertions are worthless. Yet, dogmatic assertions are all Evolution has. We're often told there are "mountains of evidence" for Evolution, but we're rarely shown so much as a mole hill (and the mole hill is easily kicked over). Evolutionists love to boast that 99% of scientists are on board with Evolution, but we're never told how we know they're right. We are even told that "there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place."
Well, to quote a very famous Creationist, "there is a book" that presents a satisfactory alternative to Evolution. In fact, this alternative is so satisfactory that though it is compatible with all scientific evidence available to us today, it need not be. When you ask "where did this mud hut come from?", you don't need to invent some ludicrous tale about how it was formed by gradual erosion from rainfall. "It was built by that guy over there" is a satisfactory answer. In the same way, Evolution is an excessively elaborate excuse to deny God His due credit for creating the world exactly as He said He did in Genesis.
Sadly, the same rebellious spirit that caused Adam to take from the forbidden tree continues to cause men to reject the Lord with all our might. For this, there is only one just penalty: An eternity in the lake of fire. But God, in His love, is willing to seek an alternative. Beyond all imagination, rather than punish us for our blasphemies and other sins, He instead sent Jesus to live a perfect life, and die on a cross. After that, Jesus rose again, and so all who confess Him as Lord and believe in our hearts God raised Him from the dead will be saved.