There are so many errors in this post I cannot address them all. But a couple...<quoted text>
The short answer is "yes" our science can be rejected - and is, when we find evidence that contradicts our hypotheses. The longer answer is that each scientific discipline has what's called a "theoretical framework" - an explanatory model for the phenomena it studies. All hypotheses are drawn from this theoretical framework.
For example, the theoretical framework for all biological sciences is the theory of evolution. Biological hypotheses are drawn from this theory, but don't always test the main theory. For example, if you're testing a new drug, you don't have to appeal to the framework theory. However, if we want to interpret the drug's response, we do so vis a vis the framework theory.
If you draw up a hypothesis that tests the main theory - let's say we hypothesize that gene A could not have arisen by evolution, but could only have been created - and we found out that, yes, gene A must be a created thing - then we'd have to reject the framework theory (assuming that we didn't make any mistakes or that gene A isn't a special case - like, say, if humans had created it and released it into the wild or something).
That said, you're incorrect about the abiogenesis hypothesis. It has a lot of evidence supporting it - and no contradictory evidence thus far. However, the exact mechanisms aren't worked out yet. Each of those takes on its own hypothesis testing. They are subsequently rejected or accepted. So at this point, the hypothesis is largely supported with the exact mechanisms remaining unknown and not unknowable.
For example, let's say I was designing a hypothesis to test some specific amino acid. My hypothesis would be something like "
The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that? You can't. It's also indistinguishable from "The Old Man Created humans from mud" and "God Created the world in 6 days" and "My pencil Created the universe 5 minutes ago." All these statements above are not, and cannot be turned into, hypotheses b/c they are not testable, nor disprovable.
It's not a strength to be non-disprovable, it's a weakness. Such statements cannot produce new knowledge - only bizarre claims.
Now you're welcome to believe in whatever claim you want to. Let's see you turn that claim into something interesting - something efficacious, capable of producing new technology and new knowledge - or you have nothing.
1.[STRAW MAN] "The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that?"
There is no design hypothesis proposing "Thor [or anything] created life". There is no design hypothesis that even proposes life is created. The design hypothesis proposes that biological structures exhibit exhibit complex informational structure that is irreducibly complex and indicates intelligence.
2.[FALSEHOOD] No, there is NO evidence for the theory of abiogenesis. None. All observed phenomena since the beginning of man show not one instance of its occurence. All test results conducted for the theory have been negative. All.
Mainstream biological scientists sounding just like Michael Behe:
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
December 2013, Volume 70, Issue 23, pp 4555-4567
Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information
Georgi Muskhelishvili, Andrew Travers
thus the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell.