Ok--wow--if you submit that the theory of macro-evolution has nothing to do with how life began, then we are on two different playing fields.
My studies are fairly extensive on the issue of ID. I have never heard a scientist who claims that Darwin's theory is not a theory of the origin of life.
The very title of Darwin's book says exactly what his theory is about...Origin of Species. According to Webster's, "Origin" means--The point at which something comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived.
Therefore, this means he is giving his theory of--"the point at which "species" (living things) came into existence.
I do not understand your thoughts that the two have nothing to do with each other. But, I do believe this is where we are going astray on our debate.
If you are arguing that evolution could be the means by which God decided to produce life, you can make that argument, but it is not Darwin's argument.
This shows the quality of scientists in the ID movement if they are so confused about the theory of evolution. Evolution does not address the origin of life - it only addresses how life adapts and new species originate due to these adaptations. That is where the title "origin of species" comes from. Otherwise, it would have been named "origin of life".
Scientists do have theories about the origin of life on earth but its not the same thing as the theory of evolution. I will admit that high school teachers often don't know the difference and blur the issue.
Actually, being a scientific theory, Darwin's theory never said anything one way or another about God. God is outside the realm of science. It is fundamentalist religious people and atheists who interpret evolution as being inconsistent with God. Atheists already do not believe in God, so evolution really hasn't done anything but confirm that belief. I fail to see why fundamentalists are so threatened by a theory which makes no mention of God. If you built a robot which was designed to build a machine that produced an inovative new product, did you not invent something? Who deserves the patent? The robot? The machine? I don't think you could argue anything other than that you invented the new product. Similarly, if God created the universe using the big bang as a tool and then allowed it to proceed according to the laws of nature He established, then who created the universe? The big bang? No, God did. Similarly, if the universe proceeded in such a way as to make inevitable the development of life and then life evolved according to the theory of evolution, who created humans? Evolution? No, again God is the creator. It is even possible to reconcile the six day timeline in Genesis with the big bang theory and evolution given a proper understanding of the nature of time. Time is a relative quantity. The duration measured by an observer depends on the reference frame of that observer. It is entirely possible that a duration of six 24-hour days measured from the reference frame of the universe immediately after the big bang is equivalent to a duration of tens of billions of years as measured from our current reference frame. So which is the correct time? Both! That's what relatvity tells us. The first thing God created in the Genesis account is light. The only thing present in the milliseconds after the big bang was light. There are other parallels, but I am not enough of an expert on the science or the Scripture to fully deal with them. The point is that there is no threat to a belief in God coming from science.