I don’t agree that learning the basics of the origins of elements, stars and planets before moving on to evolution of life is the equivalent of "becoming familiar with “every piece of important British and American literature —” and the rest of the items quoted.
The comparison isn’t remotely similar.
One would take no more than a semester to cover adequately and your list would take years to cover.
The only step that is unknown is exactly how, or even where, life started. That’s no reason not to procedd with all the other material that is known and can be taught with reasonable confidence.
Where something is only partly understood, that should be freely acknowledged. I don’t see why that should present a problem.
I agree, but I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with deliberately leaving whole areas unknown until such time as the pupils are ready to grasp them. Your bottom-up approach to evolution would mean that we can’t even begin teaching it until quite a late stage.
It doesn’t. It’s you (and lots of creationists) that were arguing that it would.