The THEORY of Evolution is becoming less generally accepted, contrary to what mainstream proponents say and believe. It's time to move on from this antiquated philosophy. By now it should have evolved into the LAW of Evolution if it held water.

@Pelotoner If the word "theory" was being used in the colloquial sense, yes, you'd be right. But the difference here is that Evolution is a scientific theory, which differs in definition from what is normally characterized as speculation. The colloquial definition for theory (the one you're referring to) is: "1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning: speculation. 3. An assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information: hypothesis." A scientific theory, however, is defined as: "An explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers."
Also, your claim that the theory of evolution is "becoming less generally accepted" is not true in the scientific community. Pew polls, on the other hand, may have drawn their own conclusions in the face of the same scientific observations.

@ Pelotoner Evolution is an "antiquated" philosophy? You might want to research the the terms theory, antiquated, and evolution. Trolling on a technology/science website won't get you far.

Natural evolution is NOT generally accepted. Bacteria is still bacteria. Does it change? Yes, but bacteria is still bacteria. Everything still reproduces after its own kind.

An interesting experiment, if unfortunately doomed to fail. I liken it to watching the noise pattern on an old CRT-based TV and expecting to see a frame from Andy Griffith. Order (of the complexity required for life) simply does not arise from chaos, folks. Sorry, just not gonna happen. I would guess (if I may) that what @Pelotoner above is saying is that *Classical Darwinian Evolution" is becoming less generally accepted... that branch of evolution which relies *solely* upon the "random mutation / natural selection" mechanism to explain observed phenomena. To find an interesting dive into alternative directions, visit cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ and click around a bit. I don't agree with much of what's mentioned there (esp. the author's dogged sales pitch for his "new" book), but lots there to stretch traditional boundaries!

IMHO I don't think replacing DNA/RNA of a living cell counts as creating artificial life. This is just my guess but I think this experiment will also fail no matter how long it continues. We'll see.

Pelotoner is right. Using the scientific method (systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses) this will take a long time before theory of macro evolution and accidental formation of life can be considered seriously.
Helios, to be scientifically literate and technology minded does not require one to be a believer of evolution. As a biologist and an engineer, the evidence to suggest that macro evolution is even remotely possible, takes much more faith than to realize that there is a creator. Logic and the evidence will lead you to that conclusion if you truly want to do the research. (Try to examine the evidence for yourself... I also suggest you visit the creation museum in Kentucky).

The thing is...nature had a whopping long time, a nearly unspeakable number of test tubes, many chemicals and environments.
I'll celebrate for sure, if these dauntless explorers come up with something.
Religion comforts...and cripples. History, and some of the statements made in this Comments section, show it to be so.

If we had an ensemble of planets with life on them we would have a basis for evaluating the success of the theory of evolution. A lot of science fiction scenarios come to mind.

@VadimR I suggest you research the terms cognitive dissonance and delusion. The museum you are referring to is the one where they suggest humans lived in the same time period as dinosaurs? I don't think they have anything valuable to say about science. And the only thing that is necessary for a person to follow the Creation theory of life as we know it is belief, faith and those who will not challenge dogma out of respect for tradition and fear of insulting another's sensibilities.