I've always thought that the statement that biogenesis has nothing to do with evolution was one of the biggest cop-outs of biology.
Darwinism is the theory, not evolution. Evolution is the phenomena being studied. The basic wrongness in the evolutionary argument is confusion between what is the theory and what is being studied. Chemistry is not a theory, but phenomena that is studied.
Major tenets in Darwinism have been refuted. The birds on the island, under close scrutiny, actually do interbreed. Etc. Some parts of Darwinism, to my surprise, have been shown, like the plant Goatsbeard evolving into a species that can interbreed with only with younger versions, and not older (speciation).
But as earlier pointed out
http://www.westminsterhall.us/hfs3/fs_evo_essay.html the current evolutionary model (Darwinism) has some problems as a workable theory. If it is not a working theory, it has limited scope, mostly related to the first part of the essay, as a way of catagorization of the fossil record.
Darwin fanatics see much more, Creationist see much less, and I hope more stuff from geneticists will puzzle them both, like the vitamin C stuff: What do Fruit bats, gerbils, and the great ape family have in common?
DK
Leaving biogenesis out of the whole evolution thing does one thing that is fascinating...opening the door for Intelligent Design as the beginning.