You’ve just noticed several people carrying signs that say “Down with Ice Cream.”   You approach them to ask what is so bad about ice cream.  After listening to them for a few minutes, it becomes clear to you that there is a misunderstanding.  To them, the phrase “ice cream” actually means kicking dogs.  They are against kicking dogs. 

“Oh, you mean that you’re against kicking dogs?” you ask.

“Down with ice cream!” they nod.

It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation without a common understanding of the words being used.  “Evolution” is a good example.   When I hear someone speaking disparagingly about evolution I can trigger the following exchange:

Q:  What’s so bad about evolution?

A: It’s just a theory (#1) that says that everything here is just an accident (#2) and that people came from monkeys (#3).

Zero for three, every time.  In short, most people who “oppose” evolution are against something other than the scientific theory of evolution.  Further, most anti-evolutionists I’ve encountered don’t know what scientists say about evolution and don’t care [Good places to learn what scientists think would be here and here.]

The irony is that most people who oppose evolution are not opposed to any of the major facts upon which evolution is based (e.g., that random mutations occur, that some of these mutations make organisms more likely to survive long enough to bear offspring, or that a parent’s traits tend to be passed on to its children).  In fact, opponents don’t usually …