Nope. When you go back to square one, you've got to deal with the non-living/living problem, haven't you? The logic of pure, materialistic evolution absolutely must all the way back to raw, non-living components, somehow assembling themselves into living matter. Were it not to assume this, then there would be no dismissal of ID as "non-science."
Of course, the real "proof," if you will, is in the fact that people have been and continue trying very hard to replicate the origins of life, "in a test tube," as it were. Why would they do that, if they didn't already think that's how it happened in the first place?
An honest "we don't know" would be refreshing, as would an honest "we think it happened this way." But the "doesn't address the beginning of life" argument is a cop-out.
I don't know where you've been, but everything I've been reading in scientific journals has been giving you everything you're calling for. Maybe they haven't been wailing enough and calling for ID as their savior. I dunno.
Evolution never has tried to explain origin of life. Never.
For you or anyone else to set it up as something it isn't in order to knock it down is just silly. Stop it. I respect your intellect more than to let you do this.
Evolutionary theory doesn't address origin of life. It addresses what happened after life appeared. Nothing more.
No you're just not happy the scientists don't see it the way you do. Abiogenisis is a seperate topic. Just like zoology, or microbiology are seperate topics.