One problem is that I am not specific every time I use the word "evolution", because I reject the general "molecules to man" theory of evolution (or something changing into an entirely new creature), but do not reject observable variations within species.
Another problem is when evolutionists equate goo-to-you evolution, a philosophy about the past attempting to use scientific principles, with operational "hands on" science. (By the way, accusing people of "hating science" is also fallacious, but never mind about that now.) There are two equivocations happening in that example, between the definitions of "science" and of "evolution".
An excellent piece on ambiguity and equivocation on the part of evolutionists is here.