Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't even attempt to define "what is life". Indeed, it is a question of great importance and interest - but mostly to physicists, philosophers and theologians:
No one claims that science is infallible. Science is constantly looking for new evidence, and revising old theories. If you're arguing against infallability, you're arguing against something that isn't there.
... and Darwinistic science has no foundation for answers about life (not the biological mechanisms, the rest of life)because it has no foundation for such having thrown out the supernatural.
Darwin never set out to write a book of morality. He wanted to explain the way species develop over time. Nor did he throw out the supernatural. No more than other sciences do when they explain natural phenomena that had been previously believed to be divinely caused: disease, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, comets, lighting, the power of the sun, etc.
The TRUTH belongs to God, and all truth is His truth.
Yes, now we're back to my original question. If a scientific observation clearly conflicts with scripture, how do you decide what to believe? This is exactly the problem presented to the Christian world when Galileo discovered evidence for the solar system, which was believed to contradict several passages of scripture. The church forced Galileo to confess heresy, they banned his book, and they confined him to house arrest for the last seven years of his life.
Do you reject the solar system? If not, why not?