Um, no. The origin of life has always been outside of the theory of evolution. Is color theory unacceptable because it doesn't explain the origin of life?
... and b.) how it propagated itself to the point we observe it today, with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Study the theory itself (and not a cartoon version of it), and you'll find out. You'll find out what scientists believe we can explain, and what we currently have no explanation for. Science admits these things.
... with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.
Because there's no way to test for "any agent capable of intelligence and/or design." We've been over this, too.
Surely you are not going to tell me dogmatic evolutionists have said nothing about common ancestry where the biosphere is concerned?
I'm not and don't call me "shirley." ;>)
I've been around a while, and the longer I live the more apparent it becomes there as many "scientific" views of the universe as there are religions. Some believe in abiogenesis, some don't. Some believe in macroevolution, some don't. Some believe in a heliocentric world view, some believe in a geocentric world view.
There is hardly agreement as to "how much can be explained" let alone how to explain it. I count it as a good thing that God created a universe infinitely packed with phenomena to explore, and then placed man in the middle to check it out. Yes. It is good.
It used to be VERY good. Before long it will be better than ever.
Only an individual who lives in a vaccuum would suggest that science is unanimous in its understanding of the universe, but that person would have only his own reason and senses to contend with.