Cosmic EVOLUTION.
Stellar EVOLUTION.
Chemical EVOLUTION.
These three kinds of Evolution have two things in common. First, they are all called "Evolution", even by secular institutions like Harvard University. Second, they are all atheistic alternatives to Creationism. What's more is that if you believe in biological Evolution, you are extremely likely to believe in the others. At the very least you have no real justification for rejecting them.
Thus, at the very most, when Creationists attack these beliefs, it is disingenuous to brush off the arguments by claiming "that's not part of Evolution", because 1. it is, and 2. even if we play that game and separate it from Evolution, the fact is you still likely believe these things. You may not, for example, be particularly thrilled to classify chemical Evolution as being a part of Evolution, but I find it is extremely rare to find an Evolutionist who does not believe life arose from an inorganic source. In fact, to this day, I have not found one.
The fact that Evolutionists so frequently dismiss arguments in this manner strongly suggests that they cannot refute the argument in question. It really speaks to the deficiency of Evolution that the only real way to defend it is to strip it of so much that it actually becomes compatible with the account given in Genesis. If the only way to defend your view is to make it so indistinguishable from Christianity that one cannot attack "Evolution" without attacking Christianity, it is obvious that Christianity, which need not be altered at all to defend, is the superior religion.