data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5568d/5568d194c6c2411f800c44b1aa47285eb7b8101b" alt=""
One big problem with "chemical evolution" is this: It not only assumes that Darwinian evolution is a creative force but that it can work prior to the existence of life forms. Darwin himself never claimed that, incidentally. He offered to explain the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life.
If chemical evolution were true, we should expect to see much more unusual chemistry around us than we apparently do. So claims about chemical evolution are claims intended to support ... what, exactly? A naturalist worldview as opposed to a theist one? That should not, of course, be funded by the taxpayer.
If people want to do that, let them find their own audience and do it on their own time, and their own dime.