I don't think life will ever be created in a laboratory. Transforming dead elements into a living organism is far too complex a thing. But even if scientists were able to do that at some point in the future, that wouldn't strike a blow for evolutionists against those who believe in the Biblical creation account. After all, life would have had to have been created by an intelligence guiding and directing the process. A "higher power" (in this case, the scientist) is necessary to cause these things to happen, even if it's in the laboratory.
In this article, "Life as We Know It Nearly Created in the Lab," the argument is clearly being made for evolution, that we're supposedly closer to understanding how some of the early processes might have worked. Isn't it ironic, though, that they have to use words like "created" to describe their work? And the self-replicating enzymes that are being spoken of in the article were synthesized by the researchers, programmed and oriented by them to behave a certain way--all of which, to me at least, seems to support a creationist point of view more than an evolutionary one. How these incredibly complex self-replicating enzymes could ever come into existence on their own by chance random processes is never even addressed. And even if you take everything the scientists are saying at face value, you're still light-years away from anything approaching "life as we know it." For those who only want to deal with objective fact, they sure exhibit a lot of faith in their theories!
In the end these scientists are taking stuff God already made and tinkering with it to try to show God's non-existence, or at least his irrelevance. A little reminiscent of Psalm 14:1 it seems to me.
(Thanks to Nathan Fischer for forwarding this article to me.)