Is this an erroneous description of evolution, or is it accurate?

Ah, not quite. In the beginning it's postulated that everything was inside this EXTREMELY small, dense space (the "Primeval atom") and that is what "exploded" to form the universe. As for the beginning of planets, it was mostly CO2 and rocks and lava. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment on how biotic components were, in fact, made from abiotic "early earth" simulations. Evolution is not a "decision," it is simply mutations.

Im not an expert in the matter, but i can bring a few corrections

1. In the beginning, there was not nothing. The universe was in an incredibly dense state.

3. It did NOT rain on all the planets. It rained on VERY few planets.

As for the rest i don't want to give out false or incomplete information.

Yes, you are correct to say that chemicals wouldn't randomly come together to form a modern complex cell and all its organelles. Nobody ever claimed this happened, however. If you had read the theory of abiogenesis (not evolution, a common mistake), you would know that self-replicating protein chains DO form from these random chemicals. So do lipid coverings, which are attracted to and formed by these chains--a primitive cell membrane. The chains that attracted the better coverings maintained their RNA (which was first before DNA), and lasted longer. Through this process of mutation and natural selection, more complex cells with organelles were able to survive and reproduce. It happened piece by piece over millions of generations.

Remember that Science simply tries to explain how things happened. Religion attempts to explain who and why. There does not have to be a conflict. If you are a Christian, research the word Yom, or Yome (I cant remember the correct spelling right now.) This is the Hebrew word used in the creation depiction in genesis. It can mean day, but also can mean a great many other things. If the creation story is allegorical, or partially symbolic, does it really change your faith? It shouldn't. The point of the bible is not to be a historical or scientific text, but a guide to our spiritual life with God.

Yes, it's erroneous. Evolution is a biological theory. It says nothing about the Big Bang, the solar system, or anything else in astronomy.

By the way, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion. Not quite the same thing. It doesn't rain on all planets, either. There has to be an atmosphere for it to rain, and some planets don't have them.

That gem was created by Creationists as a way of mocking Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species". Don't pay any attention to it, as the whole thing is completely fallacious.

The Origin of Speices doesn't even mention the creation of life, let alone the creation of everything in the Universe.

Whoever wrote that nonsense should be shot.

Inaccurate from point one

2 is another miss as are 3-5, leaving only 6 & 7 correct. Your grade is 28.571. Grats that is an F

Erroneous. Evolution is a change in the alleles over time. It has nothing to do with cosmology or abiogenesis.

"erroneous" isn't the word I'd use.

"retarded" would be a better description. The only parts that I would class as accurate in any way, are so simplistic, I actually lost about 10 IQ points reading them.

Not even close to accurate. 1st. paragraph and you already messed it up. (The big bang has nothing to do with evolution, so why allude to it?). In fact, I would say it's safe to say that every sentence is wrong in some way or another.