Roger, once you get away from evolution as a philosophy or an ideology or even a religion, then you have to define what you mean by evolution in the context. We might say that our ideas evolve, but this has nothing to do with scientific evolution. We can say that technology evolves, but again, this is not scientific evolution in a biological or chemical physical sense. When we talk about evolution in a scientific sense, rather than in a philosophical or social sense, we are talking primarily about biology. Sometimes this gets broadened to included space, planets, solar systems and habitat (temperature, volcanoes, etc.), but that is not evolution in the biological sense. It is physics mostly, tied in with chemistry. It is not organic, but inorganic.
Organic evolution is tied directly to genetics and inseparable from it. Certainly, the world has changed over time. Evolutionary theory posits that the globe started as merely a cooling mass of lava, which obviously is not the condition of earth today, although there is still a lot of lava within the earth. Scripture indicates that the earth was void, and without form, covered by water. In both cases, the world has changed. But mere change is not evolution. Evolution requires species change. The earth is still earth, not a moon, nor a different planet such as Mars or Jupiter.
When we look at the human race changing as if it were an evolutionary thing, then we have turned evolution into a philosophy or theology, rather than a body of scientific principles and processes. God may have given us permission to have changing religions, but religions have changed since the beginning, and people have left God and come back to God since the beginning of scripture until now. That aspect (which is the main one) has not significantly changed. In any case, you can have one without the other. You can have a change in faith without a change in biology, or you could have a change in biology without a change in faith. They should not be conflated.
I should say also about permission to have changing religions does not mean approval by God. God allows us to make mistakes, and even allows us to disobey him. But…
As far as biological change, which is something I prefer to discuss in this context, I do understand and accept all the forms of biological change that I can see or measure. Obviously, even what Darwin saw in the Galapagos was a form of apparent change in the finches. However, with all the different beak sizes, he did not see finches evolve into something that could not be called a finch.
In all the studies of fruit flies and changes, we have never seen a fruit fly become a house fly or a wasp; they remain fruit flies. All the different breeds of dogs are still dogs, as is true for cattle and horses remaining true to type. (and of course, most of the varieties is a directed special selection, not a random undirected natural selection). We have seen some small changes through cross-breeding, such as between rye and wheat to produce triticale. But again, this is directed and controlled, not natural evolution.
Of course I agree with you that animals adapt in a sense, to the limits of their genetic variablility. In some other cases, they adapt merely structurally, as in the differences between bigger muscles and smaller muscles, weaker bones and stronger bones, bigger beaks and smaller beaks. Different lifestyles result in some changes. But obviously, they are also limited in their adaptation, which is why some species go extinct, and other species move in to friendly areas. Such as kangaroos moving from Europe to Australia, and many birds being migratory.
We could suppose that there are various types of bears, and various types of tigers, which are in different habitats, adapting within the limits of their genetic capability, but which could still breed together if given the opportunity and encouragement. In all of these cases, genetic variability has been lost in the various more specialized lines or genotypes. This is selection, but it is not evolution. It is a loss of genetic information. Dogs and wolves and coyotes can interbreed. But each specialized line of dog has less genetic variability than the ancestor such as wolf or wild dog. Mongrels have more variability than purebreds. Evolutionists will say this selection is evolution. But by itself it is a loss of genetic information, not a gain of information. It is limited to size, color, conformation, and does not generate new organs or appendages.
An early evolution theory error was that animals could adapt physiologically and structurally to suit their environment. This was before genetics were well understood. Now we know that if animals are to change significantly, the genetics must have changed first; enough mutations must have happened to create new organs or organelles that create a benefit for an organism in a new environment, or even in the same environment in which it already lives. The question is whether or not this is actually biologically likely or possible, especially to create the huge diversity of species we see today within the context and timelines proposed by evolutionary theory. Some scientists say that this is logistically and statistically improbable, and therefore scientifically impossible.