Actually, on FR's crevo boards that's a huge, huge controversy. The general consensus appears to be that it shouldn't be considered, and the pro-evos are this view's biggest proponent.
As for me, I'm inclined to agree with you. Abiogenesis is part of evolutionary theory -- at least as far as it is taught in our schools and common culture.
Unlike evolution, ID has no objective evidence
Where is the objective evidence for abiogenesis?
Well, let's look at what we know about the earliest life. There is the undoubted fact that life arose. There is the strong evidence for common ancestry. There is evidence RNA preceded DNA, that the genetic code was once considerably simpler, and that the RNA translation machinery evolved from a more primitive one which exploted direct binding affinities between triplet codons and amino acids, rather than tRNA. There is evidence also that the earliest life were chemotrophs with much simpler metabolism, and they exploited inorganic oxidation-reactions directly, with less mediation by enzymes. So the first thing one has to say is that much of the complexity you see in life was not present in the common ancestor, which was a much simpler beast altogther.
As to how it arose; no we don't have direct evidence yet, though there are hints. But we do know that evolution took us the remaining 90% of the way between primitive chemotrophs and complex multicellular organisms; one has to ask, why invoke a separate mechanism for the first 10%? Personally, I favor abiogenesis at high temperatures near ocean vents, where there are huge gradients of thermodynamic potentials, a situation known to favor self organization, lots of diverse metal ions and odd chemistry, as well as pre-existing order and catalytic potential as a result of the surface itself.
I agree, it’s a weakness in evolution that should be challenged. I remember there were sub-components of RNA (proteins as I think) were found naturally and some that could be created, but it was incomplete. The next best evidence is probably that it fits into the larger evolutionary theory for which there is evidence. But I agree, it’s a big unknown.