[Alamo-Girl]

What if you don't want to theorize about that? I't submitted that Darwin is to be held accountable for the misperceptions that TToE addresses the origins of life because he didn't explicitly state that it doesn't, and thereby gave everyone license to "fill in the blanks" however they choose.

Then you exclude it in the axioms/postulates! In this case, Darwin should have said "This theory does not address the origin of life or what life is."

Because he didn't say that, people do indeed "fill in the blanks."

At the same time, you seem to be saying that there's no reason to be bound by established protocols, or that you have to be constrained by existing axioms.

To the contrary, I'm saying if there is a protocol in place for your investigation - for instance, of an antibody - then it is enough to refer to that protocol.

[tacticalogic]

Then you exclude it in the axioms/postulates! In this case, Darwin should have said "This theory does not address the origin of life or what life is."

No mathematical axiom I am aware of states explicitly everything it does not address, nor have I ever seen any requirement of a mathematical proof that it demonstate proof, but also specify everything it does not prove.