This is a delightfully accurate assessment of the definition shell-game.

Consider: if your football team isn't good enough to make it to the endzone; if your place kicker lacks the power and accuracy to score a field goal; the simplest way to give your team a shot is obvious. MOVE THE GOALPOSTS. "Lowering the bar" is another way of expressing the idea.

Evolutionism is a dismal failure. Their "theory" turns out not to even be a testable hypothesis in experimental science; the evidence submitted to substantiate it is circular; I could go on and on. Proponents of evolutionism have time after time stated the shortcomings themselves. It was not a creationist who first recognized the degree of faith involved in being an evolutionist.

Term after term after term has been redefined.

Transitional
Evolution
Mutation
Species
Vestigial
(A)ether
Recombination

In every case, the bar has been lowered and obfuscation has been facilitated. There is not even one exception. Not one!

These are a few terms. But it goes much further. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been misportrayed more times than you can shake a stick at. If it only applied to "closed" systems, as evolutionists insist, it could never have been discovered in the first place. It was discovered, verified, utilized, and universally accepted on Earth; and the evolutionist is very keen on reminding folks that Earth isn't a "closed" system. This lie cannot be believed if one tries!

Recapitulation has been redefined as well. It is accurately defined as exactly the same thing they still teach, with the sole exception that it is politically incorrect/taboo to use the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" slogan. It has endured a rewrite of history in order to facilitate its perpetuation. I explain and provide a link or two in the "Recap Frauds" thread.

It would depend on which ideas you're talking about. The keystone ideas have been acknowledged by evolutionists as inevitably resulting in evil if applied. A "science" that cannot be applied is a waste of time.

T.H. Huxley once wrote a piece that demonstrated civilization was surely doomed if evolution should not be applied, and in the same piece turned around and argued that it would be wrong to apply it. He put mankind between a rock and a hard place, and offered no remedy. His apologists maintain that his argument that evolution must be applied is rendered non-existent/null by his subsequent assertion that it would be wrong. The first argument is not refuted at all; the conclusion is just denied (on questionable grounds a good number of people would not even care about, likely including Huxley himself). Many followers have had no trouble interpreting what he intended. A valid, logical argument followed by a lame, ineffective counter-argument is not difficult to interpret, even if it is double-talk. IMO he didn't want to fog over his real intent very thickly, and it's just bogus to claim he effectively obscured it.

Even Richard Dawkins says evolution would result in horrific things if applied to humans. He says it shouldn't be done. But he does advocate defining the teaching of "religious" ideas to children as child abuse; he suggests all "religious" people are mentally ill. You've seen RAZD post some of what he says about anyone who won't swallow evolutionism. He says discussion of eugenics should begin again. I cannot interpret him as anything other than "get rid of religion and implement full-scale evolutionism".

Dawkins could be taken for Huxley by those who believe in reincarnation.
It doesn't help the investigation when to ask the wrong question or point out the wrong fact is to risk one's career. Honest ideas don't generally have to resort to such measures as are taken in defense of evolutionism.