He's making a philosophical point about the chemical processes of abiogenesis very possibly being similar to the trial and error of evolution, and it shouldn't be cast aside as a separate study.
But it doesn't change the fact that the study of evolution IS NOT the study of the origin (the actual chemical processes) of life.
Myers is appealing for the ideas to intermingle, as they might be related if abiogenesis ever jumps from the realm of purely theoretical to scientific fact. This is altogether different from the claim that creationists make, that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing, or are directly related in the world of science. They're not, and that's an inarguable fact.
And my point still stands, that science doesn’t “claim to know the origin of life.” Myers wasn’t claiming to know how abiogenesis works, and wasn’t saying that he knows how life started.