Allow me to deconstruct your rant.
Evolution, in the strictest sense of the word, refers to change over time. Anything, living or non, natural or man made, has the capacity to evolve in this sense. Basically what you're saying is that it is an accepted fact that in our world change happens. I do not disagree with you. I do not understand why you think I would.
Biologically, evolution refers to various changes that occur within living organisms. Animal husbandry is an ancient form of human-controlled evolution, and it is responsible for producing just about every subspecies of domestic animal we know today. This type of evolution can occur naturally, as is the case with your moth example (more on that in a moment). It is known as microevolution, or changes within a given species. One form of microevolution is called adaptation. Adaptation is responsible for producing the polar bear, or for increasing the solid black population of Vipera berus in northern Scandinavia. We know microevolution is a fact because we study and experiment with it on a regular basis, and have done so for literally thousands of years.
The form of biological evolution that creationists do NOT accept is macroevolution, or changes above the family level (or even above the genus level). There are two reasons for this. First and foremost, macroevolution does NOT fit the scientific method. It has never been observed or tested, and thus does not deserve to be called fact. Second, macroevolution requires the addition of genetic information from completely unknown sources that code for the change in question. Again, this has never been observed to happen, and in theory appears to be quite impossible. It has been our observation that no genetic information is added in the process of microevolution (particularly adaptation and husbandry), and in fact information is much more often lost to microevolution. So macroevolution clearly is not possible. Any time genetic information IS added, it has a verifiable source, meaning something else lost genetic information in order to give it to the organism in question. Retroviruses are one such example. But retroviruses are not capable of turning a reptile into a bird. They either suppress or enhance the physiology of an organism, in some cases acting as the keys to allow that system to function (such as the reproductive system in females, especially placental females). But they do not add organism-changing information.
As to your moth example. You've given an excellent illustration of adaptation. This change happened within the subspecies of peppered moth commonly found in Europe. But what you've failed to mention is that no new genetic information was added. Peppered moths routinely come in their namesake light, mottled color, as well as darker morphs. To say that the existence of black peppered moths is proof of macroevolution is to say that the fact that I have blue eyes and my friend has brown eyes is proof that we are both descended from pond scum. Clearly the melanistic trait has been a part of the peppered moth's genome since long before the Industrial Revolution of Europe. Also, the Industrial Revolution temporarily increased the number of black moths, but it did not make them anything other than moths. It didn't even change their subspecies, let alone their genus, family or order. Nor did it change the fact that black is apparently a recessive trait in peppered moths.
Finally, evolution as you've illustrated it here is not a "random change." To be truly random something has to occur without ANY outside influences. Natural selection is far from random. Is it mere coincidence that the common adder, a snake normally found in gray and black or brown and beige, is almost always solid black north of the arctic circle? Or is it an adaptation to take full advantage of the long days of an all too short summer?
So you see, I do understand evolution. I dare say I understand it far better than you do.