...."theory," "scientific, biological and Biblical aspects"? Where's the "philosophy"? Granted it refers to "Darwin's philosophy," but secondarily in a sentence that's already described it as a scientific "theory," or at least a "theory" with "scientific, biological" aspects.
I have a degree in Philosophy. This is clearly within the realm of a Philosophy of Science or Philosophy of Religion course.
CLEARLY they wanted to engage evolution as a (putatively false) scientific theory. The business about "philosophy" was nothing but an attempt to avoid the legal baggage of creationism.
Any argument in science is a legitimate field of discussion in philosophy, as is anything that involves human thought. Here is a link from a renowned physicist that discusses scientific arguments in philosophy:
The Nature and Philosophy of Science
Granted the discussion may not be as disciplined as it probably should be, but why do you care anyway, since it is not being taught in science class and it is an elective. You care because you cannot stand anyone who would dare question your dogma.
There are clearly many weak arguments in evolutionary theory. Universal common descent is one of them. So is random mutation as the mechanism for change. My Philosophy of Science teacher use to savage Darwin's thought process as well as many other scientists all the way from Galileo to Einstein.