A gaskiya, shugabannin addini daga al'ummomin Musulmi da Kirista na iya ganin cewa yana da amfani ga manufar ilimantarwa ta zamantakewa da al'adu su gabatar da tambayoyi masu amsa tambaya ga mabiya addininsu. Haka kuma, za su iya rage illolin ɓatarwa ta New Atheist ga labaran tarihi ta hanyar gudanar da bincike a wannan fanni. Misalin irin wannan tambaya ita ce a tambayi ko maganganun New Atheist da kansu suna hana ci gaban kimiyya. Wani misali kuma shi ne ƙungiyar Third Way of Evolution, wadda ke da ɗaruruwan masana kimiyya da ke goyon bayan ra'ayoyin juyin halitta marasa al'ada waɗanda ke raunana haɗakar Neo-Darwinian ta zamani (duba Shafin Yanar Gizo na Third Way of Evolution). A cikin dalilan da ke shafin yanar gizon, an bayyana cewa neo Darwinism:

Realistically, religious leaders from Muslim and Christian communities may find it advantageous for the cause of social and cultural edification to propose counter-questions to congregation members or religious followers. Moreover, they may limit the corrosive impacts of New Atheist misinformation on historical narratives by conducting research into this area. Such a counter question is exemplified by asking whether New Atheist discourse is itself inhibiting to science. Another example is the Third Way of Evolution group which has hundreds of sciences consisting of non-normative evolutionary ideas which undermine the modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis (see Third Way of Evolution Website). On the website rationale, it states that neo Darwinism:

Yana na kimiyyar halitta a fili, amma tana watsi da shaidu da yawa na zamani daga ilimin kwayoyin halitta (molecular biology), kuma tana dogara da wasu zato marasa tushe game da yadda bambance-bambancen gado ke faruwa ba tare da wani tsari ba. NeoDarwinism tana watsi da wasu muhimman hanyoyin sauyin halitta masu sauri kamar symbiogenesis, canjin DNA a tsakanin halittu ba ta hanyar haihuwa ba (horizontal DNA transfer), aikin mobile DNA, da gyare-gyaren epigenetic. Haka kuma, wasu masu goyon bayan NeoDarwinism sun mayar da Zaɓin Halitta (Natural Selection) wani ƙarfi na musamman mai ƙirƙira wanda ke warware dukkan matsalolin sauyin halitta masu wahala ba tare da ingantaccen tushe na gwaji ba (The Third Way of Evolution, 2016).

Is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. NeoDarwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some NeoDarwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis (The Third Way of Evolution, 2016).

Haqiqa, ɗaya daga cikin wadanda suka kafa kungiyar, Dr. Denis Noble, ya saba wa Dawkins a kan ra'ayin "Selfish Gene" (Kwayar Halittar Son Kai), amma yana jinkirin muhawara da Dawkins a kan wannan batu (Crace, 2008). Wasu daga cikin masana kimiyya na "Third Way" (Hanya ta Uku) na iya a fassara su da cewa suna kin tsarin juyin halitta na Darwin gaba daya. Wannan ana gani ne a shawarar Eugene Koonin na "Babban Fashewar Halitta" (biological Big Bang), wadda ke zaton cewa "manyan nau'o'in sabbin halittu suna fitowa daban-daban, ta hanyar tsarin zabe, daga tafkin abubuwan da ke hade da juna na tsara da ta gabata" (Koonin, 2007, p.1). Daga wannan, Dr. David Berlinski a cikin littafinsa na muhawara da Dawkins ya ce: "Manyan sauye-sauye a juyin halittar halittu," in ji Koonin:

Indeed, one of the organisation’s co-founders, Dr. Denis Noble, disagrees with Dawkins on the Selfish Gene idea but is reluctant to dispute Dawkins on the issue (Crace, 2008). Certain Third Way scientific members may be interpreted as rejecting the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism altogether. This is observed with Eugene Koonin’s proposal of a ‘biological Big Bang’ that supposes ‘the major types of new forms emerge independently, via a sampling process, from the pool of recombining entities of the preceding generation’ (Koonin, 2007, p.1). From this Dr. David Berlinsky in his polemical work against Dawkins states, ‘Major transitions in biological evolution,’ Koonin writes:

Waɗannan su ne daidai sauye-sauyen da ka'idar Darwin ta yi niyyar bayyanawa. Idan waɗannan "manyan sauye-sauye" suna wakiltar "bullowar sabbin siffofi kwatsam," to kammalawar da ya kamata a cimma ba ita ce cewa yanayi mugu ne ba, a'a cewa Darwin bai yi daidai ba (Berlinksy, 2009:192).

These are precisely the transitions that Darwin’s theory was intended to explain. If those “major transitions” represent a “sudden emergence of new forms,” the obvious conclusion to draw is not that nature is perverse but that Darwin was wrong (Berlinksy, 2009:192).

A wide array of biologists, who communicate methodologically naturalistic articulations, and other specialists disagree with aspects of Darwinian theory, but this is glossed over by dogmatic New Atheists like Daniel Dennett, who proposes that Darwin's theory is 'beyond all reasonable doubt' (Dennett, 1995, p.11). Theoretically, science is based on induction and can, therefore, never be incorrigible, as Dennett himself indicates in other contexts, stating 'Note that the Argument from Design depends on an inductive inference: where there's smoke, there's fire; and where there's design, there's mind' (Dennett, 1995, p.30). Dennett may substitute the words 'arguments from design' with 'the entire Darwinian enterprise' and effectively refute his own previous postulation. Scientific dogma may be defined as more inhibiting to scientific advancement than religion, as there is no question of overlapping magisteria.

A wide array of biologists – who communicate methodologically naturalistic articulations - and other specialists disagree with aspects of Darwinian theory, but this is glossed over by dogmatic New Atheists like Daniel Dennett who proposes that Darwin’s theory is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ (Dennett, 1995, p.11). Theoretically, science is based on induction and can, therefore, never be incorrigible as indicated by Dennett in other contexts, stating ‘Note that the Argument from Design depends on an inductive inference: where there's smoke, there's fire; and where there's design, there's mind’ (Dennett, 1995, p.30). Dennett may substitute the words ‘arguments from design’ to ‘the entire Darwinian enterprise’ and effectively refute his own previous postulation. Scientific dogma may be defined as more inhibiting to scientific advancement than religion as there is no question of overlapping magisteria.