And if they were ‘averting their eyes at the proper moment’ then Darwinists should have no problem with the idea that life was created as complex perfectly functioning forms.
Instead they're devising scenarios and experiments to find an origin of life. Evidently the theorists do address the question so that in practice the origin question has become very much a part of the theory.
The fallacy is that the piano player in the front parlor isn't part of what goes on upstairs.
Sure it's "part of the story." Everything's part of the story--how the Earth got here, how water got here, how oxygen got here...it's all part of the story of life. That doesn't mean it all has to be explained before any of it can be studied. It's more like you're saying we can't write a biography of someone without starting with the act of copulation of his parents--and if we don't know who both his parents are, we can't say anything about his life story at all!
Instead they're devising scenarios and experiments to find an origin of life. Evidently the theorists do address the question so that in practice the origin question has become very much a part of the theory.
Sure, some scientists are. But it's you who are lumping them together under the term "Darwinists."
“Instead they’re devising scenarios and experiments to find an origin of life. Evidently the theorists do address the question so that in practice the origin question has become very much a part of the theory.”
What examples do you have of this?