What you're disputing is that "theory of evolution" is used by some to provide an all encompassing explanation for why the universe is as it is without resorting to the supernatural. What I'd suggest you do is let Richard Dawkins know.
That's not what I said, and it isn't what Dawkins does with it in his essay that you linked.
What I said was that the "Theory of Evolution" is about Biology, not Cosmology, and that the word "evolution" can be used to characterize ANY process of formation or change.
What Dawkins does in your link is use the (biological) Theory of Evolution, along with physics and chaos theory to illustrate that natural processes can give rise to complexity without the need for a "designer," and then argues in view of the foregoing, there is no reason to assume that "black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life, etc." had to be "designed." Or, as Dawkins puts it himself:
This argument is a circular argument. It assumes that the universe, black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life etc are created. Actually physics, chaos theory and evolutionary theory tell us how most complex things in the world could have evolved on their own, without any help from any "watchmaker". [emphasis added]
Note that this is the only instance of the word "Evolution" appearing anywhere in the essay you linked.
Using the principles of the (biological) Theory of Evolution (specifically, purely natural mechanisms that could explain the development of complex entities), along with evidence provided by OTHER scientific theories, in an argument about the necessity for a "designer" of the Universe, hardly qualifies as converting the (biological) Theory of Evolution into a theory of Cosmology, which is what your original post to me asserted.
A similar example of the mistake you are making would be to argue that because one uses principles derived from Meteorology to demonstrate the existence of long-term chaotic processes in nature, that Meteorology IS Chaos Theory.