Kwa kweli, viongozi wa kidini kutoka jumuiya za Kiislamu na Kikristo wanaweza kuona ni jambo la manufaa kwa ajili ya maendeleo ya kijamii na kitamaduni kuwapendekezea waumini maswali ya kupinga. Zaidi ya hayo, wanaweza kupunguza athari mbaya za taarifa potofu za Wanaatheisti Wapya kwenye simulizi za kihistoria kwa kufanya utafiti katika eneo hili. Swali la kupinga la aina hii linaweza kuwa kuuliza kama mjadala wa Wanaatheisti Wapya wenyewe unazuia sayansi. Mfano mwingine ni kundi la Third Way of Evolution, ambalo lina mamia ya wanasayansi wanaounga mkono mawazo yasiyo ya kawaida ya mageuzi, yanayopinga muungano wa kisasa wa Neo-Darwinian (angalia Tovuti ya Third Way of Evolution). Kwenye msingi wa tovuti hiyo, imeelezwa kwamba 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:

Ni wazi kwamba ni sayansi ya asili, lakini inapuuza ushahidi mwingi wa kisasa wa kimolekuli na inategemea seti ya dhana zisizo na uthibitisho kuhusu asili ya kubahatisha ya tofauti za kurithi. NeoDarwinism inapuuza michakato muhimu ya mabadiliko ya haraka kama vile symbiogenesis, uhamisho wa DNA kati ya viumbe (horizontal DNA transfer), utendaji wa DNA inayohama (mobile DNA) na mabadiliko ya epigenetiki. Zaidi ya hayo, baadhi ya wanaNeoDarwinism wamemfanya Uteuzi wa Asili kuwa nguvu ya kipekee ya kuumba inayotatua matatizo yote magumu ya mabadiliko bila msingi halisi wa kiuchunguzi (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).

Kwa kweli, mmoja wa waanzilishi wenza wa shirika hilo, Dkt. Denis Noble, anapinga wazo la Dawkins la *The Selfish Gene* lakini hana hamu ya kubishana na Dawkins kuhusu suala hilo (Crace, 2008). Baadhi ya wanachama wa kisayansi wa Njia ya Tatu huenda wakafasiriwa kuwa wanakataa kabisa utaratibu wa mabadiliko ya viumbe wa Darwin. Hili linaonekana katika pendekezo la Eugene Koonin la 'Mlipuko Mkubwa wa kibiolojia' (biological Big Bang), ambalo linadhani kwamba 'aina kuu mpya za viumbe huibuka kwa kujitegemea, kupitia mchakato wa sampuli, kutoka kwenye kundi la vitu vinavyochanganyika vya kizazi kilichotangulia' (Koonin, 2007, uk. 1). Kutokana na hili, Dkt. David Berlinski katika kazi yake ya kibishi dhidi ya Dawkins anasema, 'Mabadiliko makubwa katika mageuzi ya kibiolojia,' Koonin aandika:

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:

Hizi ndizo hasa mpito ambazo nadharia ya Darwin ilikusudiwa kuzieleza. Ikiwa mpito hizo "kuu" zinawakilisha "kuibuka ghafla kwa maumbo mapya," hitimisho dhahiri si kwamba maumbile ni potovu, bali kwamba Darwin alikosea (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).

Kundi ya wanabiolojia na wataalamu wengine wengi, ambao huwasilisha mawazo kwa kutumia maelezo ya kimbinu ya kinaturalisti, hawakubaliani na baadhi ya vipengele vya nadharia ya Darwin, lakini jambo hili hupuuzwa na wanaoitwa New Atheists wenye msimamo mkali kama Daniel Dennett, anayependekeza kwamba nadharia ya Darwin ni "isiyo na shaka yoyote ya busara" (Dennett, 1995, uk. 11). Kinadharia, sayansi inategemea uingizaji (induction) na kwa hiyo haiwezi kamwe kuwa isiyorekebishika, kama Dennett mwenyewe anavyoonyesha katika muktadha mwingine, akisema: 'Kumbuka kwamba Hoja kutoka kwa Usanifu (Argument from Design) inategemea hitimisho la kiuingizaji: pale penye moshi, pana moto; na pale penye usanifu, pana akili' (Dennett, 1995, uk. 30). Dennett anaweza kubadilisha maneno 'hoja kutoka kwa usanifu' kuwa 'mradi mzima wa Kidarwin', na hivyo kukanusha kwa ufanisi dhana yake ya awali. Dogma ya kisayansi inaweza kufafanuliwa kuwa kikwazo kikubwa zaidi kwa maendeleo ya sayansi kuliko dini, kwa kuwa hakuna swali lolote la mwingiliano wa mamlaka (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.