Darwin's point was that knowing the origin of life was not necessary to the study of how it works.
Just as we can study physics and cosmology without knowing whether the big bang was a natural event or something cooked up by a deity.
Without being personal, I'm detecting something in your posts that suggests you believe science is missing important things by limiting itself to empiricism.
That is why I brought up the two slit experiment. I think this is the moment in time in which empiricism proved it had the imagination and creativity to discover something contrary to intuition at the deepest level.
Science is different from its parent philosophies because it invents new kinds of knowledge. The inventing process involves imagining new ideas and testing them. It is recursive and progressive. Over time, science achieves consensus -- something entirely new in the history of thought.
Of course. But that isn't happening.