The human body has about 37.2 trillion cells. All of organic life consists of cells, and so there are zillions and zillions of cells. Scientists estimate that there are 8.7 million different forms of organic life on earth; some say one trillion. There are billions of living creatures – birds alone are estimated to number 300 billion. Every cell, and each living organism, is an intricate wondrous machine – see the The Spiritual Cell. It is ridiculous to think that a single cell, or a single organism, could arise by chance. But most scientists, and much of the world, in false thrall to Darwinian theorising(1) currently blindly accept, that not only one cell, or one organism, but zillions and zillions of cells, and millions of species of life, could all have arisen, and even developed to perfection, by chance.
Scientists have not been able to explain how life originated by chance, and Insight 1 shows that, even if it had, reproduction could not have evolved by chance in one generation. Of course, reproduction is necessary for the survival of any organism beyond one generation. Insight 1 was published in July 2017 and, despite there now (August 2018) having been tens of thousands of “unique visitors” (as defined by Weebly) to The Verdict’s website, the argument in Insight 1 remains unchallenged because it is clearly irrefutable; moreover, there appears to be nothing in the evolution literature to explain how, if life arose, reproduction could have evolved by chance in one generation. The profound question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, remains unanswered. Interestingly, whilst science is silent on the advent of reproduction in a first generation, Genesis 1, 11 and 29 speak of the creation of “seed” at the very beginning, and implicit in verses is 22 and 28 is that reproduction was part of creation as, of course, it must have been.
Science’s current premise of absolute materialism resulting in ascribing, not just the existence of a single cell, but the existence of all of life, consisting of zillions of cells, to chance is preposterous, and entirely beyond rational belief. Arguably, science even acknowledges that. In the New York Review of Books renowned scientist Professor Richard Lewontin confessed frankly on 9 January 1997: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs…because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations… Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
We, who live in the real world, know that that immutable approach is false since it fails to take account of the reality that our world is supernatural, as Insight 2 shows, and that there is a significant spiritual dimension of which we are fully aware, as Insights 3 and 4 clearly show. The views in Insights 2, 3, and the first three paragraphs of Insight 4, also published in July 2017, remain unchallenged.