I'm serious: everyone that comes to believe in Evolution, at some point wants to change it, but for the one that displaces it that understanding be tested.
Those involved in the biological sciences are, naturally, involved in improving our understanding of the evolutionary process. That is what scientists do. However, improvement involves change, so your objection is ill-directed.
We do not yet know all there is to know about evolution. To avoid the change that seems to upset you we would have to forbid further scientific investigation. Do you seriously wish for that?
You are basically setting me, or anyone, up for the fall, if they try to understand it in a context that is otherwise.
The process and progress of the scientific investigations of evolution are not established in order to confound anyone; quite the reverse Any one of average intellect and serious intent, properly directed, can readily grasp the fundamentals of evolution and lay to one side the details that lie at the margins of discovery. I sense, despite repeated advice in this regard, that you have failed to make the attempt. (It is not too late.)
In the meantime, you condemn concepts like "naming Machine Evolution" as if, it hasn't been said dozens of times that anything evolves.
Where is your consistency?
I think what condemns you is that if you accept one Evolution is different from another, eventually the point in believing in a specific Evolution will be lost.
Many words, probably most words, have multiple meanings. You are a fluent speaker and reader of English and should be well aware of this. There is no cause for you to be distressed by it. The evolution that seems most to interest you is biological evolution, the evolution that accounts for the diversity of life on this planet.
The principle feature that biological evolution has in common with the other forms of evolution (chemical, geological, stellar, etc.) is change. The other key traits of each are quite distinct. There is no reason to confuse them and your frequent tendency to so is a fault of your approach not of the science, or vocabulary.
Which is more important "keeping Evolution the same" or "naming ways in which Evolutions are similar"?
Neither. Both are trivial and silly.
"
Keeping evolution the same" is a ridiculous, pointless, impractical idea that directly assaults all sound principle of scientific investigation.
"
Naming ways in Evolutions (sic) are similar", is an ideal essay subject for a high school English student, but has no place in the development or serious discussion of evolutionary theory of any kind (biological, galactic, chemical, etc., etc.)
