I notice that non-creationists recognize a restricted sense of the word "evolution" to refer to
biological evolution, the "origin of species," what Darwin wrote about. There's a more general sense of the word meaning "any change over time," but people tend to assume that a creationist arguing against "evolution" is disputing how the diversity of life arose.
But creationist mass-consumption literature tends to lump under one scientific header--"the Theory of Evolution"--all of biological evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology ... everything relating to an old universe changing over time according to naturalistic cause-and-effect principles. There are really two different dictionaries in play, here.
I look at evolution as a hypothesis concerning the origin of the species. Part of that hypothesis includes how the earliest organism formed. I have stated several times that evolutionists are divided regarding this early organism. That's why you have theories such as punctuated equillibrium, panspermia, and the like. The reason I went to the big bang is because evolutionists do. As I said, I'm perfectly willing to throw that theory out. I will also limit discussion to just biological evolution here on earth and try to ignore how the non-living minerals that made up the primordial soup that joined together to form living organisms got here.