You are a little bit incoherent there. Charles Darwin never included origin of life in his work, neither has any scientist who understands the theory of evolution.
So the ‘nearly everyone’ you are talking about are uneducated in science, and here you are, a non-scientist, giving false information to those same ‘nearly everyone.’
So what we have is scientists agree that the theory of evolution regards more complex from less complex life forms, and non-scientists would rather not learn from scientists so they throw up their hands and say no one can agree.
So I guess I can agree to this- uneducated people cannot agree what the theory of evolution means.
No, nearly everyone would not, and those that did would be mistaken. Evolution is about the adaptation and change of life over time.
"Charles Darwin's book was titled "The ORIGIN of the Species."
Right, not "The Origin of Life". If that's what he meant that's what he would have said. All the many species originated after life existed. He said "origin of species" because that's what he meant.
"But since no one can agree on what "evolution" is exactly, how can you claim that there is proof of something that is ill-defined?"
Just because you are confused about something doesn't mean everyone else is. The concept of evolution is not ill-defined.
"Life began only once."
That's an assumption. You are doing what you criticize others for. In fact you don't know that it couldn't have originated in multiple times and locations and either had very similar chemistry each time, or the more robust variation overwhelmed the other starts.
"Life began only once. That is why it is beyond the competence of science to investigate how life began. Science can only test through experiments phenomenon that are occurring in the present. "
Again wrong. There is no reason in principle that scientists couldn't test hypothesis for the origin of life in a lab. In fact many such tests regarding various elements of such scenarios have been tested in labs over the years.