A common misconception that creationists have (boy, how many posts about creationism start like that, I wonder?) about evolution is that it attempts to explain the origin of life on our planet. Now, there’s a subset of creationists who do not take that view. Instead, they insinuate that evolutionary theory merely lends to the idea that the origin of life was an unguided, mechanistic process. And to them, that’s offense enough.
Ironically, there’s no hope for those more informed creationists. They tend to be the kinds of people who moralize, equivocate, and cognitively flimflam themselves. I think of Dembski, Behe, Luskin, et al here. In essence, they’re liars, and they know they’re liars. Their objections to evolutionary theory, and science in general, are merely political ones; they don’t like science; they don’t like scientists. They like Christian theology, and they don’t care which wrapping it gets. No, you won’t save these guys. They’re invested. And it’s lucrative for them. Double whammy.
So obviously from my set up (and lengthly tangent), no, evolution doesn’t explain the origins of life, nor does it claim to. Evolution explains the origin of species. To appreciate the difference, you have to know what a species is.
In general, a population of organisms is a species if there exists another population with which it cannot reproduce. So you’ve got birds over here, and bees over there, and they can’t produce children. The origin of species, then, refers to the origin of the diversification of life that we see. It does not refer to the origin of life on our, or any other, planet. In other words, evolutionary theory assumes as a precondition that lifeforms exist. And all it concludes is that these lifeforms develop and change in a certain way.
There are many hypotheses about the origin of life on our planet, and none of them are conclusive. In fact, most are just made up.