Just about every scientist that deals with the subject in whatever way, does. There are also skeptics among the scientific community, so really there's plenty of people trying to test the theories. It's true for most if not all scientific theories.

If you want specific names, how about Stanley Miller and Harold Urey? They did experiments on how the very first of life might have come into existence. They succeeded in making amino-acids, the building blocks of life. And while I fully admit they haven't been able to recreate life itself just yet, their experiments have been a major step forward.



I'm sorry, but again you're missing the main point. If actual evidence suggest a story is wrong, then a story obviously becomes questionable at best, entirely wrong at 'worst'.

There are plenty of cases where archaeological or geological evidence simply disproves a certain event all together (for example the biblical flood, there's no geological evidence whatsoever that it occurred even though such events would definitely leave their marks and traces within a geological context).

I wouldn't mind if people learn about these stories as there's a lot more value in them in terms of moral issues, social problems and so on. It's great literature. But... it's extremely questionable if it's historical accurate at all. It would simply be wrong to teach these stories as if they truly happened and are 100% accurate.

I agree that old history can be quite inaccurate also and in my opinion teachers should pay more attention to this. Especially when it's a known fact that a certain historic event might have happened differently. I personally think that history should be taught with an open mind, it should make student think about the events. Contrary to what people tend to think, the recording of our history in whatever form is never objective and it should not be treated as if it is. Just my 2ct.

By the way, for those who talk of 'chance' being the cause or motor behind life and it's evolution in general. There are a lot of very tangible causes that kick-started the development. For example the mere existence of cosmic radiation or more accurately UV-radiation definitely caused early microbes to be bombarded with change causing mutations. For those who doubt the time frame of evolution, it's a good idea to look at the circumstances of early life. One puddle of microbes constantly bombarded with UV-radiation, I don't think that has much to do with 'chance',

Cheers