Isn't religious doctrine merely another theory to the scientific mind? I see no reason why science not could consider both "life on Earth was created spontaneously out of primordial ooze" and "life on Earth was created by an intelligent being". The former statement is at most a hypothesis; there is nothing substantial to prove it. Even if one believes there is no substantial evidence to prove the latter, it doesn't make it less scientific to investigate the possibility - it's certainly favored by Occam's Razor.
No. Religious doctrine is most often pure dictate. Scientific theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence.
"I see no reason why science not could consider both "life on Earth was created spontaneously out of primordial ooze" and "life on Earth was created by an intelligent being". The former statement is at most a hypothesis; there is nothing substantial to prove it.
No one has a good enough idea to teach any kind of abiogenisis outside of college. The hypothesis says nothing more than life somehow came about naturally. That's it. This intelligent being stuff is not science whatsoever. I've already posted what the proper subject for science is. If you want to have the forces of the designer taught, bring him in for examination, so we can quantify his action and motivations. Else, he's stays in the religious class.
" Even if one believes there is no substantial evidence to prove the latter, it doesn't make it less scientific to investigate the possibility - it's certainly favored by Occam's Razor."
The latter is not a proper scientific subject, nor is it favored by Occam's razor. Occam's razor: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." The physics is sufficient.