I would disagree but not to be critical or your thought but provide definition. Science, philosophy, and Mathematics are strictly defined by the method of each and if thought does not fall in one of these methods it is opinion. By definition science is the observation and explanation of a material fact (as evolution), philosophy seeks to prove or disprove the unknown (as faith and belief) by argument, and mathematics designates symbols and numbers to provide proofs and laws for things that occur and are known to exist but are not a material fact (as gravity). None of the methods can affirm or refute the other. If one remembers these three things their thought can be better presented.
Evolutionists routinely claim that the theory of evolution is separate from the origin of life. That's technically true, but if the origin of life cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means, that more or less blows away the notion that science must be premised on pure naturalism, eh?
Evolution is different from the origin of life. Evolution exists as a material fact and therefore can be observed by the method of science. The origin of life is unknown and does not exist as a material fact but as faith and belief. Therefore it is observed by philosophy. Neither can refute the other. However if a origin of life could be produced by experiment, or could be found to occur in nature, it would be observed as a material fact and could be explained by science. Until the origin of life is observed as a material fact science can do nothing and the origin of life will remain philosophy and unknown.