I don't really care if the theories are grouped together. Actually, it's better if they aren't.
The point is they often are and by evolutionists. Why?
Until such time as science can replicate the Origins of Life, any theory is simply that, a theory.
From a scientist, I will tell you the arrogance and the stupidity is coming from the evolutionists as well.
Despite the pompous certitude of scientists and educators, the fact remains:
A simple functioning enzyme, a primitive life form of any kind, has NEVER been replicated. NEVER.
Ask yourself - why?
Maybe because they're both origin-related.
For the same reason that biology blends into chemistry and chemistry blends into astronomy and cosmology, and why elements of all of these figure into geology and why many of them are important in anthropology.
Science is a seamless discipline. No one person can master all of science, so there is specialization. But everyone in science expects that all observable phenomena can ultimately be attributed to a small set of universal laws and uniform principles.
So anyone in the science of biology expects the definition of life to be pushed back in time and in simplicity, until it becomes impossible to define a precise transition between living and nonliving.
That is a expectation and a conjecture. It is not different in principle from the expectations of any other science. All observable phenomena will eventually be natural phenomena.
This does not change the fact that the study of evolution is a sepatrate discipline from the study of biogenesis. Just as planetary astronomy is a differnt discipline from that of cosmology.