"That statement is not correct."
Wrong. The statement is correct.
You are using a definition of 'life' as some invisible, simple, self-replicating form that would lead to all others (i.e., evolution). I am using life in the context of the different baramin that could be identified in Darwin's day. Darwin certainly promoted the philosophical conclusion that God did not create the various baramin the were observed in his day, but rather was limited to some simple self-replicating form that eventually led to all others.
This distinction does not remove the fallacies in Darwin or his adherent's thinking. Having admitted that God is needed for the invisible simple form, Darwin's mistake in thinking that all subsequent forms had to be generated by evolution is still intact. As is his mistake in interpreting all observations through his 'a priori' belief that this invisible, simple, original form could generate all of the observed baramin.
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).
All your pseudoscience, misdirection, and distortion, cannot change the facts.
Baramin is a made up pseudoscientific term. Show me one creditable peer-reviewed paper on that subject.