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.
They always seem so surprised when someone reads their links; I think it's because they don't read ours and their lack of curiosity is telling.
What I'm saying is that there is that there is a well-known "theory of evolution" which involves cosmology (and biology) and can be traced to the ideas published by Darwin. It is good that you are disassociating yourself from it.
This is from a site which considers this cosmological view as something to be taught uncritically to school children:
Evolution, the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today, is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology.Now what concept is the word "evolution" describing in this context?
What is meant by the term evolution? Thomson (1982) has distinguished three meanings: 1) biological change over time; 2) descent through common ancestry; and 3) the Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection. A fourth definition is also commonly used today, 4) an extension of the term beyond biology to include the origin and development of the universe, galaxy, sun and earth. . .The term "theory of evolution" often applies to cosmology especially in the popular culture as is often demonstrated by mass market "news" magazines.