In terms, abiology (TL:1), from a- "not" + bio- "life" + -ology "study of", refers to study of animate powered CHNOPS+ things, such as bacterial, plants, and animals, from the explicit "abioism" point of view, namely the discernment that things such as bacteria, plants, and animals, while they move about, are not "alive" or in possession of any "bio-property", but rather are "moved" or reactively animated, by a combination of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces, which tend to produce animation in CH-based things, a result of the valence shell geometry of the carbon atom.
Abiology is similar to the terms atheology, or "a-ether-ology", e.g., each being the study of "things" that do not exist, life, god, and ether, respectively. These terms variously amount to the study of the "unlearning" of what was previously believed to be turn, and the science, mind, language, concept, and conceptual reforms, following as repercussions.
In 1866, Ernst Haeckel, in his General Morphology, theorized about a creature or entity called “plastiden”, which was composed of some type of memory molecules, he called ‘plastidule”, which he conjectured might be behind the origin of life. In his “On the Procreation of Life-Particles or Perigenesis of Plastidule” (1875), he was discussing how atoms have are “animated” by an inherent amount of force, and was speaking about the concept of “atomic soul” needed to be adopted into general chemistry. Haeckel here, to note, was digging around in the area of panbioism, and everything is sort of alive theory.
In 1902, Carl Klunzinger, a German zoologist, in respect to the work of Haeckel, was referring to “abiology”, as follows:
- “In Germany, in particular, the word ‘biology’ is misunderstood and missing. So one often speaks of insect biology when it comes to metamorphoses and representations of such. Others, like Haeckel, understand biology to be the theory of living beings , i.e. animals and plants or living beings, and therefore combine zoology and botany, including their morphology and physiology, as biological sciences, in contrast to other branches of natural science that deal with the inorganic world: mineralogy, physics, etc = abiology [Abiologie]. Abiology. But one understands by biology also and more correctly the doctrine of the life phenomena of animals (and plants) in contrast to morphology, whereby ecology (doctrine of the household in nature, dependence of life phenomena on the outside world) and ethology (doctrine from the habits of life = animal life from is), as well as the animal and plant physiology (doctrine of the functions) as branches of biology. A word for ‘bivlogy’ in the former sense is difficult to find).”
- — Carl Klunzinger (1902), “Language Lessons in Zoology” 
In short, Klunzinger defined abioism as the branches of the natural sciences that deal with the inorganic world, such as mineralogy and physics.
In 2021, Libb Thims, building on the work of Haeckel, albeit in the opposite direction, i.e. reverse-panbioism, was employing the term “abiology” to mean the study of the biology from the point of view of “abioism”, wherein biology, and all its defunct terms and concepts, are replaced and upgraded to the new science and terminology reformed language of “powered chnopsology”.
- Klunzinger, Carl. (1902). “Language Lessons in Zoology” (“Sprachsunden in der Zoologie”) (pg. 907), Proceedings of the International Congress of Zoology (pgs. 900-). Cambridge.