I’ll try not to repeat what I said in other posts.
That definition seems reasonable to me (depending on how you define “inorganic”, which, in this case I take it to mean “not coming from life”).
It’s also important to note (as others here have) that ‘abiogenesis’ is not the only ‘scientific’ theory of the origin of life.
As for why to separate the origin-of-life from evolution (origin of species):
a) Darwin did — you simply cannot have a logical discussion about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, if you insist on defining ‘evolution’ differently than he did.
b) it opens up the possibility that “life” was created, by the Creator — but, the various forms of life are the result of evolution.
c) The Theory of Evolution is based on the notion of “natural selection” — which Darwin meant to compare with the planned selection used by breeders. Few disagree that selection (natural or planned) can create different breeds of a species (micro-evolution). The creation of different species through selection (macro-evolution) is another matter altogether. As is the creation of any life form from non-living material. IOW, you can believe in natural selection, without believing that it can result in new species. Similarly, you can believe in all of Darwin’s ToE, and simultaneously believe that the Creator created life from non-living matter.
Your a, b and c are well stated and articulated.
A is not correct, but b and c are, in my opinion. Atheists or creationists may disagree.
No need to repeat this line of thought ad nauseam.
I am interested in an answer to the question.
“That was my whole point. Too many people do lump the origin of life in with the origin of species”
Was the first life not a species?