For goodness sake, it's still rice. It is not half rice half some primitive ancestor.
I think you're misunderstanding their use of "evolution" in this sense. The usage here is primarily agricultural, in that rice has "evolved" in much the same way that dogs, horses, wheat, and tomatoes have "evolved."
So? Ask the creationist websites authors, if you've got something against that "science" thing. Evolution "within kinds" is still evolution.