What you have to remember, and sorry for stating the obvious, is that a scientific theory is not defined by its name. When we refer to theories of evolution in any field of science, we are referring to a discrete set of mechanisms to describe a specific phenomenon. For example in biological evolution the theory describes the change in a populations genotype/phenotype over time from one generation to the next (and before you say it, yes I know this is a very simplified definition of the theory of 'biological' evolution).
Okay so I'm just a biologist, but as far as I understand you can't apply this definition to other theories of evolution, such as stellar evolution where stars/planets don't reproduce and there is no inheritance of traits from one generation to the next. Astronomy will have its own specific definition which describes the mechanisms of stellar evolution, and which obviously cannot be used to describe biological evolution. So you see although, as many have agreed, there are many theories of evolution in science, you can't just lump altogether just because they are all called theories of evolution.
It is for this same reason that abiogenesis can't be conflated with biological evolution. The various hypotheses for abiogenesis mainly describe a series of chemical reactions which may eventually give rise to a self-replicating molecule. Once this self-replicating molecule appears, there is then the potential for the mechanisms described in the theory of biological evolution to act on it, but before this point any theory that arises for abiogenesis will be determined by chemistry, not biology.
Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
