I agree, but if you make certain assumptions with evolution, abiogenesis is implied. There's always the possibility of contamination of the earth by life from elsewhere, but ultimately, you have to address its origin. Why beat around the bush?<quoted text>
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. For the exact same reason the theory of gravity does not rely on explaining the origin of mass.
This has been explained to the fundies thousands of times, and as yet is left unaddressed by them.
Assumption one: In an environment where life exists and can thrive, natural selection will cause that life to change in response to competition.
Assumption two: Life will adapt to new environments and exploit them, providing the means for survival are within the species reach.
Assumption three: Life started out simple and gained complexity over time, as new mutations were selectively added to the gene pool.
No divine magic is required, and assuming that it does intervene only detracts from the verifiable evidence at hand. If someone can prove that divine intervention DOES exist, then we can base theories on the idea that it had in the past. For now, to include divinity is just one of many forms of political bias.