Despite being correctly warned by educators that Darwin's theory on the origin of "species" cannot be used to explain the origin of the first life ("abiogenessis"), many people nevertheless developed a celebratory attitude about the perceived uselessness of sacred scriptures. It must be remembered that in those times there were no microscopes with much better than 150 times magnification. The periodic character of the chart of the elements would only be established somewhat after and many elements remained unknown even then. The term "animalcule" was still in use to describe extremely small living things. The perception had been that life as simple as a molecule was possible.
As science and technology progressed, as microscopes with better and better magnification were made, as the understanding of the elements and biology increased, the notion of life so simple as a molecule became increasingly absurd. In order to count as "living" a thing must collect energy from its environment, store and utilize that energy, which apparently requires growth and reproduction. All of that requires a collection of interdependent, complicated systems.
Why then can't that happen by sheer chance given enough "million" years? Part of the problem is that the interdependent systems have to develop at the same time and work interdependently right out of the gate. There are no "million" years for that.
Another part of the problem is that the way "nature" selects is characteristically different before life or those interdependent systems exist. Before life exists the smaller molecules have the advantage in selection. Every agency of "construction" in nature is also an agency of deconstruction. The same agency that brings molecules into proximity can render them asunder. It may be observed in one laboratory experiment after another that the larger and more complex a structure becomes, the higher the probability it will be deconstructed. At some point long before the structures necessary for life are obtained the probability of deconstruction becomes equal to "1" or absolute certainty. Not only does the further construction never seem to happen, it cannot happen ever. Some people imagined that because RNA chains can reproduce or "replicate" there was a pathway for the eventual complexity of life with its interdependent systems. The chains however never become long enough. Unlike lifeless crystals that "grow" with no problem, RNA chains tend to mismatch and tear each other apart. It remains true then that before life begins the smaller molecules have the competitive advantage.
The challenge then is to imagine some scenario whereby all the complex and interdependent systems required for life somehow get constructed far enough along against the ravages of a universe bent on their disassembly. Then the challenge is to show that happening in a laboratory. That has never been done. If it is ever done, it will certainly make the news. The case against it ever being done however should be closed. Why for example does it "appear" construction ceases when amino acids are assembled by miniature lightning? The answer is that construction actually does cease because it reaches a limit rather soon and absolutely cannot go further no matter how long anyone watches. The probability of deconstruction became "1" or absolute certainty early in the process. Why then when laboratory technicians "skip ahead" to existing RNA chains does that further construction appear to cease? Again, it actually ceases, it is no mirage. The probability of deconstruction became "1" or absolute certainty early in that process as well. When a "probability" reaches absolute certainty it no longer makes sense to discuss it as a "probablility." Certainties are one thing and probabilities another.