You really need to learn what the theory of evolution actually says before you start criticizing it. The theory of evolution actually only deals with how the gene pool of populations of organisms changes as a result of differential reproductive capacity. There can be no gene pool, no populations, and no reproduction, let alone differential reproductive capacity before life began. Your (and other creationists') argument that evolution must deal with the origin of life is equivalent to saying that meteorology must deal with the origin of the earth's atmosphere. Just as it is unnecessary to understand where the atmosphere came from to understand meteorology, it is unnecessary to understand where life came from to understand the process of evolution. It is true that evolution is compatible with creationism, and I personally have espoused this belief on other threads. I also have stated that creationism is definitely not science and should not be taught in science classes. There are scientific hypotheses about the origin of life. If we must teach where life came from in science, these would be the appropriate ideas to teach. It would be appropriate to point out the speculative nature of these hypotheses. However, if we taught scientific method properly, it would be unnecessary to do so, however, as students would understand what is meant by theory, hypothesis, etc.
Actually my degree is in Forestry. I have had many biology classes. And I have done extensive research on the subject, outside of class.
Leading scientists on the subject of Darwinism suggest that evolution is "non-directed." We have learned from the Bible that God's actions always have diretion.
There are plenty more examples of this, but if evolution says nothing of "creation." Then why should creation not be taught in the schools?