You're right - Darwinism has no comment on the origins of life. That's another subject.
Evolution does, however, accurately describe what happened to that life. In two hundred years of trying, anti-Darwinists have not been able to come up with their own theory that addresses the evidence in anything remotely close to the scientific method. Wonder why that is?
Yeah, evolution accurately describes the fossil record as we know it...
Evolution describes a fossil record replete with transitional forms - unfortunately this fossil record does not exist.
The scientific method allows for objective methodical investigation and testing of hypotheses based on "known",measurable,data only. Yet the scientific method can only carry one as far as the instruments can measure.
The flaw in the scientific method is the process by which data is organized inductively(by means of "inspiration","intuition", or some other mysterious A Priori bias that has been glossed over to sound "objectively mysterious and scientific")into a cogent workable scientific theory.
In two hundred years adherents of evolution have not been able to posit a strong enough theory that would effectively over come the "so called" religious view on the origins and development of life. Simply labeling adherents of a God centered view as having too strong a religious bias leaves those doing the labeling open to charge of bias them-selves.
We can't go back in time to see what really happened despite the best planned experiments that attempt to deductively show what might have happened X years ago.