[circlecity]

"The idea that science, strictly defined, has something to do with "faith" or "belief" or even "truth" -- in a larger sense -- is false. It doesn't."

But what does the theory of Darwinian evolution have to do with "science"? It's never been witnessed happening, can't be measured, provides no predictability and can't be falsified. I see nothing about this "theory" that conforms to the scientific method. That's why it's based purely on faith.

[BroJoeK]

circlecity: "what does the theory of Darwinian evolution have to do with "science"?
It's never been witnessed happening, can't be measured, provides no predictability and can't be falsified."

First let's notice that you've shifted the discussion away from abiogenesis and to Darwinian evolution, a separate subject.
Unlike the abiogenesis hypothesis, basic evolution is a confirmed theory based on two observed facts: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Evolution theory simply says: carried on long enough those two processes will result in new breeds, varieties, sub-species, species, genera, etc.

So let's consider your objections:

1. "It's never been witnessed happening."

   Basic evolution is observed every day when we notice offspring born with modifications their ancestors didn't have and we see that natural selection, in effect, weeds out the less well adapted individuals.

   Human directed evolution is what turned wolves into dogs, the great Aurochs into dairy cows and Near Eastern Wild Cats into house cats.
   Natural evolution on the "micro" scale can be observed in many species and evidence for "macro" scale evolution found for virtually every species know.
   So there's no serious reason to doubt that it did & does happen.

2. "... can't be measured,"

   But of course it can and is measured, that's how biological classifications are determined -- whether breeds, sub-species, species or genera, etc., are based on careful measurements of the degrees of differences among different populations of similar individuals.

3. "provides no predictability..."

   In fact, evolution theory provided many predictions later confirmed.
   For a very partial listing, see here.

4. "...and can't be falsified"

   But of course evolution theory could be falsified.
   For a discussion & listing of ways, see here.

5. "I see nothing about this 'theory' that conforms to the scientific method."

   I expect that's because you've redefined "scientific method" to exclude theories you dislike, especially "historical science".
   But in fact the science of evolution is equivalent to any other, for example forensic science used to solve crimes.
   In forensics you don't see what happened but can often prove it to a jury's satisfaction.
   So with evolution.

6. "That's why it's based purely on faith."

   Words like "faith", "belief" and even "truth" in a larger sense are misapplied to science.
   Instead, science is about going where the evidence leads and finding explanations which stand up to rigorous tests.
   Ideas which fail the tests get replaced with better ideas and indeed, evolution theory today is quite different in details from Darwin's original understanding.
   But his basic idea of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection resulting long-term in new species is as well accepted today as ever.