[b_sharp]

"Instead of directly addressing the points raised and giving detailed reasoning of why science has disregarded said certain part/parts of Darwin's original entertained thoughts on the TOE concerning how the things that inhabit this earth came to be, in which he credits it's beginning to a "Creator", it is readily dismissed in the scientific field. All I am asking, as well as a lot of others, is: "

Actually the reason the study of evolution does not include abiogenesis, or any other explanation for the start of life, has been addressed by us many times. The reason science does not include the supernatural has been addressed by us many times. If you missed those explanations, that is unfortunate, but not every thread will contain every explanation.

There is no rule of science that says all hypotheses that make up a theory need to be retained, nor is there a rule that states one science cannot be divided into many to facilitate specific pursuits.

[BedRock]

Actually the reason the study of evolution does not include abiogenesis, or any other explanation for the start of life, has been addressed by us many times. The reason science does not include the supernatural has been addressed by us many times. If you missed those explanations, that is unfortunate, but not every thread will contain every explanation.

There is no rule of science that says all hypotheses that make up a theory need to be retained, nor is there a rule that states one science cannot be divided into many to facilitate specific pursuits.

Interesting...

Not all hypotheses that make up a theory need to be retained...

In other words, if part of a theory is proven wrong through scientific methods, it can be discarded.

And likewise, if science cannot prove a part of a theory incorrect, yet doesn't like that part of said theory, it can be changed or completely discarded as well...