Stump the Christian?

[Esquilax]

Sure, evolution happens. Does it go all the way back to 1 organism? No one knows...and therefore is a theory.

See, this is exactly what I mean: you do not know what evolution is. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of biological life, taking into account the genetic mutations that occur at every stage of replication; common ancestry is an inference made due to numerous observations of how our genes work, and how genetics and phylogeny recapitulate in every case. Does all life descend from a common ancestor? Yes, as far as we can tell, since all of the evidence points to this. We may not know for certain, but on the balance of probability, all of what we currently know points to this.

I am suggesting that we label fact as fact and theory theory. They both have clear definitions and it shouldn't be too hard to categorize them.

Yes, those terms do have clear definitions, one of which you have gotten exactly wrong, here. What were you saying, about your religion not being anti-science? Perhaps you were going to tell us how a practitioner of your religion would never misunderstand basic scientific terminology that one with a clear grounding in science learns before beginning anything else?

Related to that, I do object to the teaching in many/most grade/high school science classroom that life sprang from non-life. There is no evidence of that.

Yes, there is: Miller-Yurey experiments, Joan Oro's experiments... it's not perfect, but at least we can demonstrate that it's theoretically possible. And you're talking about abiogenesis now, not evolution.

Does it bother you that every concept you've talked about so far has been completely misinformed, yet your overarching argument is that your religion doesn't impede your understanding of science?

Regarding teaching students untrue things. I could have been clearer. Teaching that some Christians proposes ABC (Genesis literalist), and such and such religion proposes XYZ is not teaching untrue things.

However, that's also something that kids already kinda know? Putting that in the science classroom just gives it an unearned air of credibility; leave it in religious study, where it belongs.

It does not follow that a stance against parts of evolutionary theory = anti-science. 

You just used "it's just a theory!" and you're protesting a label of anti-science. Tell me, did you do any research at all into the scientific usage of theories, or the state of modern evolutionary theory, before you decided all this?