The point is that they are all thing for which people used "god" as an explanation. Anytime a natural explanation is found for such things removes and "excuse" to believe in that god.
If a believer has weak or little faith then that faith is subject to threat by new knowledge.
If an individual attempts to use any scientific finding to "disprove" god then we might call that
individual a militant atheist. Dawkins certainly falls into such a category. It is utterly ridiculous to call this "evolutionism" or any other such "ism" other than atheisim since it is an individual thing and there is clearly, creationist cries not-with-standing, no organization or plot to espouse this.
It is also obvious nonsense to call it evolutionism since, as has been pointed out, you have to, when all is said and done call it:
physicism-cosmologyism-geologyism-chemistryism-biologyism-evolutionism.