It would be a good idea for one to have a working knowledge about any subject against which one wants to argue. Otherwise, he broadcasts his lack of knowledge.
Points of fact: Darwin never addressed the origin of life (2), and one's revulsion at a proposition is not an argument against it, nor does such revulsion lend one molecule of evidence against the proposition (1).
Too, asserting that evolution is "vague and changing" displays an ignorance of the scientific method and the fact that virtually every new discovery and experiment, as well as different fields of science, constantly confirm evolution. The arguments within fields of science relevant to evolution are not whether evolution is true or false, the debates are over specifics—for example: Was Australopithecus afarensis in the line that eventually led to Homo sapiens or were they a dead-end like many other australopithecines?
In settling such disputes, scientists go into great detail on bone structure, dentition, etc. How much do you know about the dentition of Australopithecus afarensis, and why it matters?
The fact that there are state reps who want to force creationism into the science class is a good expose on how people can graduate from college and still be ignorant of science. Your reps are woefully undereducated. How did they ever get elected to anything?