All that I'm pointing out is that you (and others) continue to return to the same line of reasoning: that there is a sort of "default theory" (here: "God exists", but for the moment let's set the theistic element of this conversation aside) that must be disproved by any other theory. This is a basic logical fallacy. This is a "critical thinking 101", will-be-on-the-first-test-of-the-first-semester, as-basic-as-they-come logical fallacy. I don't know how else to explain it to make this point more clear than I already have.
Whatever motives you may believe people have for attempting to disprove this theory are irrelevant: the very notion that one theory is the default theory that must be disproved is fallacious. You're thinking from the wrong end. All theories are in a foot race, if you will: he with the most evidence wins. It doesn't matter if we're talking about theories as to how light may be produced from electricity or theories as to how life came into being: theories stand or fall on the basis of evidence.
To return to the theistic debate:
At present, there is no proven way to derive life from matter. There is no winner. However, theories other than the "God did it" theory are pulling ahead and, in fact, the "God did it" theory, at present, has no evidence and is, to rely once more on this metaphor, still standing at the start line.
Do I believe that there isn't a single scientist in the whole of the venture with a bone to pick with the religious? Of course not. That's why science relies upon empirical evidence that stands or falls regardless of the opinions of those involved.
As for the perspectivist leaning this thread has begun to take: the extent to which you believe reality (and, consequently, science) is only a matter of personal opinion and perspective is the extent to which you interject your own wishes and inclinations between perception and reality.