Let's look at an example. Ned Bowden is a chemistry professor at the University of Iowa. He published an article in the university magazine: Common ground: A case for ending the animosity between science and religion. Bowden said ...
It’s remarkably consistent how evolution and Genesis look at the process and tell the same stories using different words. Science can never prove or disprove God, but science can provide support for the existence of God and that is what the Big Bang and evolution can give us. There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through, but it is highly possible that evolution was the tool that God used to bring humans into being.A bunch of other professors at the University of Iowa took exception to that claim that there were big holes in modern evolutionary theory [The science of evolution: Faculty members respond to recent Campus Voices article]. They said ...
Scientists use the term “theory” in a profoundly different way than lay people, who often use it synonymously with “dubious.” For us, theories are not hunches or wild guesses, but collections of statements about the world that make sense of natural observations and experimental findings.They are correct. What Ned Bowden said was very misleading.
In that regard, it's important to remember that the fact that germs cause disease is still called the germ theory, and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is still called the heliocentric theory. No reasonable person today disputes the underlying facts in those two theories.
Such has been the process with evolutionary theory, too, as new observations and experiments accumulate to provide consistent and overwhelming support for the fact that life on Earth has evolved. Evolutionary scientists certainly continue to refine our understanding of evolutionary processes, but we no longer debate the central principles of evolutionary theory as a scientific framework for understanding Earth's diversity.
Now for the fun part.
University of Iowa Chemist Rebuked by Faculty for Acknowledging "Holes" in Darwinian Theory]. Klinghoffer says ...
on the point about Darwinian theory having holes you could "drive a semi-truck through," why does that sound familiar? Holes, gaps...oh, right...it reminds me of what Harvard computer scientist Leslie Valiant writes in his book Probably Approximately Correct, quoted by Berkeley mathematician Edward Frenkel in his New York Times review, about how Darwinism "has the gaping gap that it can make no quantitative predictions as far as the number of generations needed for the evolution of a behavior of a certain complexity" (emphasis added).Do you see the problem? Klinghoffer is talking about "Darwinian Theory" whereas the professors in Iowa were talking about "evolutionary theory." There's a big difference. I know for a fact that some of the biology professors would agree that "Darwinian Theory" is inadequate.
Why does Valiant get away with saying that, while Bowden is publicly condemned by 25 of his closest colleagues? It seems unfair. Is it that Bowden specifies the size of the "holes" in terms of the dimensions of a particular vehicle, a semi-truck?
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
It's seems to be impossible for IDiots to recognize that their definitions are misleading.
Denyse O'leary jumps on the bandwagon over on Uncommon Descent: Somebody gets it in the neck (again). She says ...
... for saying Darwinism isn’t totally and completely true....That's a flat out lie. After decades of trying to explain definitions to the IDiots we have no choice. Their failure to understand cannot be entirely due to stupidity. They must be wicked.
Note: By “evolution,” they do not mean change over time, they mean Darwinism. When they are trying to enforce it in the school system, they always mean Darwinism.
They must be deliberately lying.