A theory of change.
The theory of Evolution, in it's entirety, is the teaching that The universe essentially created itself including the stars, planets, and everythign else, which later (on Earth), life spontaneously arose from non-living matter, usually said to be rocks that were wet or water somehow, and slowly transformed into new life forms with new genetic information being added and developing new body plans (Phyla) until millions of species have existed throughout history.
Biological evolution being what many people mean whent hey say "evolution" is only part of the much larger framework that Evolution has erected to explain history, science and life. The problem however is that the theory of evolution, on any level, is not only wholely unsupported by scientific evidence and principals, it is such a maleable and shallow doctrine of materialism that anything is made to fit it as evidence or proof for it. Even the most devestating evidences against the theory are somehow assimilated into being "proof positive" of it that even the most corrupt of layers and politicians and car salemens must stop to wonder in awe.
This has become increasingly evident as discoveries have come to light over the centuries, if not millenia, as twisting the truth is one of the last ways to salvage the theory of molecules to man evolution. It is now an all too common practice of those who defend Evolution to use bait and switch style tactics such as ambiguity for definitions of terms such as Evolution, ie saying it simply means change in organisms over time. This is best known as Equivocation, using mroe than one definition for a term. With such a vague definition no one can deny that evolution is true since we know and observe organisms changing over time. But that is not what evolution really teaches is it? Of course not, and anyone educated on the subject knows so.
Another example would be equating adaptaion or natural selection with evolution. All three terms refer to chage in an organism, yet while evolution states quite plainly that organisms transform over many generations into another life form, natural selection only states that certain traits in organisms are selected for the advantage of the organism, and adaptation is an organism suiting it's needs for survival by altering existing traits. Both natural selection and adaptation are in reality, brutally devestating to the theory of Darwinian Evolution as they show that organisms explicity remain the same type of organism and only existing traits are altered in order to ensure the survival of the organism in the body plan (Phyla) it currently exists in. In other words, they show stasis, or staying the same, as opposed to evolution which states that organisms drastically change in every aspect.
Another argument to bolster evolutions dieing grasp is that of Fallacious arguments such as equating evolution with biology or stating that evolution is one of the msot vital keys for science. Another would be to say that only those who do not understand evolution reject it. All these typs of claims are discussed in their own section.
One of the most commonly used forms of argument used to distort the picture in arguments, and one seen as much as Equivocation, is the method of changing what evolution states when at a loss for an answer. This is seen quite often in debates or arguments, when at a loss for an answer to a problem for an evolutionary teaching, the proponent will simply say that subject is not a part of evolutionary teachings, thereby avoiding giving an (nonexistent) answer. An example of this would be asking an evolutionary proponent how the first life form arose from non sentient/non-living forms of matter, Abiogenesis, when it has been thoroughly established that life can only come from other life of the same form, Biogenesis. The evolutionst, at a loss for a scientifically based explanation for the question, would then state that "the origin of life is not part of evolution, only modification is". It is clear however that evolutionary proponents are just as obsessed with the origin of life as they are with the diversification of it since countless articles and documentaries have been done on the subject of the origins of life and the universe itself. Simply because a teaching is an embarassment to evolution doesn't make it magically unrelated however and all questions must be explored for an answer through the viewpoint of the researcher (Creationist or Evolutionist stances and explanations).
As can be seen, aside from the deep emotional investments in an anti-Christian view of life and the universe, the excessive malleability of the theory by means of fallacious arguments backed by deep running emotional investments. Making one of the most anti-scientific and illogical teachings of all time one of the most difficult to argue against.