adapt and maybe turn into other species or go extinct - but that's specifically the evolution

of life forms by means of natural selection. The word "evolution" in general just means

"change or development", and there are plenty of other things that can evolve, or change,

and in plenty of other ways.

For example, the universe can evolve, that is, change, according to the laws of physics

- galaxies form, planets and moons orbit, stars explode, etc. This doesn't mean there's

any sort of cosmic "survival of the fittest" going on - that would be natural selection,

not evolution. Similarly, the demographic makeup of the United States can evolve as

children are born, young people move to cities, immigrants arrive in the country, etc. In

this sense, evolution just means change, and no one can deny that these these changes are

happening - the evidence is overwhelming!

Similarly, around the time Charles Darwin was doing his research, scientists (including

Darwin himself) had begun amassing piles - literally - of evidence that showed that the nature

of life on earth had changed quite significantly over time: our oldest rocks show no signs

of life, while newer and newer rocks reveal fossilized plankton, seaweed, snails, fish,

trees, insects, dinosaurs, mammals, and so on. There absolutely was and is no denying

the fact that life on earth changes - and change over time is what "evolution" means.

What Darwin proposed with his theory of natural selection was an explanation for HOW this

change (which is stupidly well supported by evidence) could have occurred naturally.

You can think of it like the Challenger disaster of 1986: all the evidence showed that the

collection of molecules named "Challenger" had tragically changed/evolved from a space

shuttle and its rocket boosters into a cloud of gas and debris shortly after launch (though

we normally call this kind of evolution "exploding"). The question for scientists at the time was

to understand and explain HOW the explosion had happened so they could prevent it in the

future. Ultimately, it was the Theory of Frozen O-rings in the Rocket Boosters, popularized

by Richard Feynman, that provided a satisfactory explanation for the cause of the disaster.

Now, you're welcome to disagree with Feynman's explanation for the explosion, or Darwin's

explanation for how life on earth changes, but they're pretty darn good explanations

for these incredibly well documented examples of change in the universe.

In the end, the universe will go on evolving regardless of whether you and I believe in

it or understand it, and perhaps the best thing to do is to remember that it's ok for

our beliefs and opinions and understandings to evolve, too. That's part of life, and it's

the way

of science.