Ha! Well, no I am not actually. The scientific methodology he used was partly wrong, I get that. I'm more interested in the *philosophical principle* he was defending, which was that creation of potential was wholly within Christian revelation. (Incidentally, I say partly because the scientist who disbelieves miracles is constrained to admit that abiogenesis happened at least once.)
As I understand it, Augustine did not teach that things "evolve" but that everything was created at once in the first instant. This constituted the problem with the six days in his eyes.
You understand more or less correctly, however he was not dogmatic about it, he was just offering his opinion. From what I read he certainly didn't give credence to the idea that the animals created in types could become other types. However, again philosophically speaking, his arguments from abiogenesis and on the phases of the moon show he wasn't opposed to the notion that God created things potentially which would come to perfection later.
Again, I don't see the appeal of evolution to you. Things develop all the time and always have. Why can't you simply be philosophically satisfied with the development of babies in the womb, of acorns to oaks, and of larvae to adult insects without seeing something appealing with de-literalizing the first two (three? eleven?) chapters of Genesis?