[siunevada]

If you are referring to the ultimate origins of the first life forms,

Yes, that is what I am referring to.

If that is outside the theory of evolution, which I would agree is correct but still a necessary point to consider, then a lot of people for a lot of years have misused the theory as 'proof' that life came into existence in a manner that can be explained as a fairly linear process from the prebiotic soup to the present.

[Dimensio]

If that is outside the theory of evolution, which I would agree is correct but still a necessary point to consider

It is an interesting field of study to be sure, but it's not at all part of the theory of evolution. Evolution does not, can not, occur until life forms exist. The process that ultimately caused life forms to exist had to involve, in at least one step, a point where there were no life forms (with the only possible exception being a hypothesis that the first life forms were seeded by time-travelling life forms from the future). If there's a step where there are no life forms, then it means that evolution cannot be applied.

then a lot of people for a lot of years have misused the theory as 'proof' that life came into existence in a manner that can be explained as a fairly linear process from the prebiotic soup to the present.

You're right. A lot of people, people without a proper understanding of the scope of the theory of evolution, have misused it in such a way.