Creationists, especially those at the Institute for Creation Research, just love tarring every science that they don’t like as ‘evolution.’ They have successfully made much of the American public distrustful of the word, so it’s unsurprising that they would try to exploit this else-ware. I’m sure, if you asked them, few people would have trouble with the observed life-cycle of stars – but call it stellar evolution and many will object.
Of course, the trouble with that example is that stellar evolution is actually a Thing. It’s just that that’s irrelevant to what creationists mean when they talk about “evolutionary models of stellar formation.” Put it this way: my bike tires have “Evolution” on them, as a brand-name. Here in the topsy-turvy world known as the antipodes, evolution has positive connotations, though admittedly they apply more to Lamarckian evolution than Darwinian. Point is: when Brian Thomas goes and writes a story under the heading Did Astronomers Find an Evolving Planet?, he’s using the word wrong for a reason, even if in this case ‘Planetary Evolution’ may also be a Thing.