Forgive me; apparently I didn't make my point clearly enough.
In the phrase:
"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"
the word "evolution" refers to "the sequence of events by which the world came to be as we see it today," as is plainly evident by the appositive set off by commas. This conforms to Webster's first definition of "evolution": "a process of formation or change; development."
The point I'm making is that the author's use of the word "evolution" in this context is DIFFERENT than when someone uses it to refer to the biological Theory of Evolution.
It's usage here is perfectly acceptable, as long as you understand it to mean "process of change" (as in "the sequence of events...." as the author puts it). And since the author spells that out via the appositive, there should be no confusion as to what he means by it.
This brings us to the last part of the sentence:
[Evolution] ..... is the central organizing principle of the historical sciences -- biology, geology, and cosmology.
Now, if the author were refering to Darwin's evolution when he wrote that, I would agree with you that it makes no sense, because Darwin's Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with explaining geology or cosmology!
But he clearly is NOT using the word "evolution" in that sense, as I have elaborated upon above, and previously. He clearly means it in the sense of "a process of change," nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not in its Darwinian sense; a Theory of the Origin of the Species (or it modern incarnation).
Thus, its usage is perfectly proper; for surely you would agree that "a process of change" over time, i.e., "evolution" in the general sense, IS the common denominator, the common underpinning, the "central organizing principle" of the three scientific fields: biology, geology, and cosmology. There is simply no reasonable way to misinterpret this and think that he means that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the "central organizing principle" of geology and cosmology, as geology and cosmology are surely NOT organized around the principles of heritable traits, mutation, reproduction, and natural selection! No reasonable person could come such a conclusion.
As I noted previously to you, the fact that these sciences are organized around the central principle of "processes of change" over time is precisely why they are all referred to as "historical sciences."
So, in conclusion, I can find no reasonable basis for objecting to that phrase being used in school. One really has to work overtime to misconstrue it.
I regret having to dwell on this so much, but you clearly seem to think the author means something quite different than what is clear to me that he meant.
No, the word "evolution" refers to a theory as to how a sequence of events caused the world to be as we see it today.
The point I'm making is that the author's use of the word "evolution" in this context is DIFFERENT than when someone uses it to refer to the biological Theory of Evolution.
Yes, he's referring to an all-encompassing theory of evolution. Why can't you bring yourself to admit that there are those who try and link Darwin's theory to cosmology.
(If the link doesn't work the address is http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/universe.htm)