I stand by everything I said — but, not necessarily things which you chose to read into what I said.
Abiogenesis is perfectly compatible with (part of, but not all of) creationism. Creationism covers both the creation of life; and the origin of species. Abiogenesis covers the creation of live itself — but, says nothing about the diversity of lifeforms. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution covers the diversification of lifeforms — but, says nothing about the origin of life itself. That was deliberate — partly because Darwin knew he had no ‘scientific’ explanation for the origin of life; and partly because Darwin was, himself, a religious man. I left all of that out before, in the interest of brevity. There’s ‘irony’ here — it’s just not where you think it is.
“because Darwin knew he had no ‘scientific’ explanation for the origin of life”
Etc..
Yes. But what is referred to as abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolutionary theory, without the qualifying “Darwinian evolution”.
The irony is that modern proselytizers of evolution don’t understand or know that in citing a differentiation between evolution and abiogenesis, as they call it, is in itself a form creationism.
Either one believes there is some sort of magical or supernatural start where life exists and then Natural selection follows to create the “diversity of life forms”, as you put it, or one believes the same forces and processes did it all.