So...apparently you also have a problem with the way evolution is taught in public school science classes?
Here is more from that same article directly after your quote. Taken from :http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9481_darwin_prosecuted_review_of_j_12_15_1993.asp
Darwinism is a mechanism by which part of this spectrum of history may be explained, in whole or in part. Darwinism attempts to explain organic evolution, at least in major part, by natural selection. But Darwinism is only one possible explanation for the history of life. If Darwinism were to be discovered not to explain organic evolution, this would have nothing in the universe (literally) to do with whether stellar or galactic evolution took place -- or even whether organic evolution took place...
The Origin of Life is Not the Same as Evolution
The Big Bang Is Not the Same as Evolution
Like the scientific creationists, Johnson confuses the origin of life and the Big Bang (the origin of the universe) with evolution. This is rather like confusing starting up the car's engine with driving away. It is necessary to start the engine to go anywhere, but there is nothing inherent about starting the car that tells you whether you are going to work, or to the corner store, or just idling in the driveway. The origin of life and the Big Bang are both interesting scientific problems, and, as they do with any scientific problem, scientists are attempting to explain them with natural rather than supernatural explanations.
When we speak of evolution in these debates, we are concerned with biological evolution only, as was Darwin. The use of the word 'evolution' in the other disciplines means 'to change over time' and was borrowed from biology.
You are purposely equivocating here; just as you are quote mining.