First, the theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin of life.
Second, disagreement with the implications of a theory does not logically constitute a scientific argument against that theory.
You may not like it, but gravity says you are not going to fly unassisted like a bird. Your personal feelings about the subject have nothing to do with either the existence of gravity, or the accuracy of the theory of gravity.
(Personally, I think gravity sucks!)
The powerful edifice of the Sciences are predicated upon a few assumptions, one of which is that Reason is Valid. The very lens through which we see and understand the Universe, Reason, and it’s validity, is difficult to explain in principle by using Logic and Reason. The use of Reason to explain Reason creates an immediate problem with circular logic. A thing cannot be used to explain itself. Kant in “A Critique of Pure Reason” faced this with the assumption that Reason must be accepted “A Priori” within humans as a valid process. This leads to many problems in that we cannot say that Reason is Valid, only that it is present and useful.
This is the boundary zone found with Metaphysic. The most fundamental question therefore, is the Universe all there is, or is there a “Superset” reality to the Universe. By extension, is Reason Valid in itself, or is there a Thing from which Reason is a derivative.
Darwinism is like this, are all processes in the Universe self contained and internally complete, or are the events in the Universe a subset of a greater “Meaning”. I, for one, find the internal consistancy of the Universe to be immensely comforting, as the lawful and consistant nature of the universe acts as a pointer toward understanding the nature of that which created all. I accept a source of Reason to be present, external to the Universe to give validity to Reason in human minds.
To claim that all life is descended from a common ancestor is to make a claim about the origin of life, namely that it only happened once.