A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

2. Key Tactics of the Naturalist Atheists

There are a number of high-level operational tactics employed by
atheist evolutionists. We will mention three main ones here:

First: The deliberate, calculated separation between:

a) the origin of life, termed abiogenesis. This refers to the process
of biological life arising from non-living matter which violates the
law of biogenesis, [life only ever arises from life], which has never
been proven false to date,49 and
b) the process of evolution after biological life has appeared.
Atheists treat them as two different non-related fields pretending
as if the scientific status of the first has no impact upon the scientific
status of the second.
This is because evolutionary theory rests upon the unproven
assumption that encoded information, then biological life arose from
inert inorganic molecules through purely physico-chemical
processes.
Put another way, they require a miracle upon which their
naturalist storytelling can be embarked upon. Without this miracle—
the appearance of encoded information followed by a self-replicating
cell—the wagon does not move and remains stuck in the warm
muddy pond. Hence, their response: “Abiogenesis isn’t part of the
theory of evolution anyway.”
The two fields are inseparable and the scientific status of the first
affects the scientific status of the second because the first is an
unproven assumption of the second.
The first self-replicating cell must have as much digital,
communications, engineering and data storage sophistication as
cells today in order for all future alleged “mutation” and “selection”

49
No scientific refutation of the law of biogenesis has been embarked
upon to date. If there have been attempts of which we are unaware, they
have failed. Many objections have been made by evolutionists and atheists
about asserting that life only coming from life being a law, but they are of
zero empirical value.

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 40
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

evolutionary processes to take place leading to the gradual increase

of prescriptive information and biological complexity and diversity.
Using mutation and natural selection to account for the arrival of
the first self-replicating cell is not possible because these processes
cannot kick in unless there is something to “mutate” and “select” for
which is the first self-replication cell. Hence, sagacious believers
require a tremendous amount of faith in a miracle of astounding
proportions which violates physico-chemistry and natural law.50
The question would also arise as to whether life originated more
than once. Since we are dealing with the micro-level scale, then
relatively large areas (such as warm ponds, oceans and large rock
surfaces) must have experienced the same circumstances and made
multiple origins of biological life possible. This is a question that
plagues evolutionists and atheists and it is amusing to see how they
address this matter. We find articles in the New Scientist magazine:
“Life may have emerged not once, but many times on Earth” with the
subtitle: “Far from being a miracle that happened just once in 4
billion years, life’s beginnings could have been so commonplace that
it began many times over”51 Years earlier, another article, “Why
complex life probably evolved only once”.52 They also speculate that
there may have been as much as ten different separate origins of
life—each of which would have its own peculiar system—but only
one survived. One can refer to the paper “Multiple origins of life”53 by
way of example wherein the authors present this conjecture on the
basis of mathematical models—the same scam used in modern
cosmology wherein the existence of imaginary forces, particles and

50
Francis Crick, the atheist and molecular biologist who codiscovered
the structure of DNA wrote in a 1981 book: “An honest man, armed with all
the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the
origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1981. p. 88.
51
https://www.newscientist.com, 17 August, 2016.
52
Ibid. 21 October, 2010.
53
Raup, D.M. & Valentine, J.W. Multiple origins of life. Proc. Natt Acad. Sci.
Vol. 80; pp. 2981-2984, May 1983.

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 41
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

fields which just happen to patch and save their empirically and
observationally falsified cosmological models is made possible
through mathematical models and equations. They literally write
imaginary entities into existence.
In accordance with the principle of proof being commensurate
with the claim, in order to argue for their religion—upon the strict
standards of the scientific method—then observable, repeatable and
testable empirical evidence must be shown in which random events,
physico-chemistry or the laws of nature—lacking choice with
intent—are able to produce a self-replicating cell, complete with its
information, communications and engineering architecture. The
proof must be commensurate with the claim. Merely showing that
amino-acids or small peptides can be produced within controlled
laboratory conditions and then extrapolating from the results is not
allowed because the proof is not commensurate with the claim and
does not meet scientific standards. Conjectures about metabolism-
first, RNA-first, lipid-first scenarios do not amount to empirical
evidence, as they are mere conjectures and storytelling exercises.
Sagacious evolutionary clergymen are masters of extrapolation.
To extrapolate means: To project beyond the range of known values
on the basis of values already determined; to infer a possibility
beyond the strict evidence of a series of facts, events, observations,
and so on. Evidences for abiogenesis and neo-Darwinian evolution
employ extrapolation and do not meet the standards of empirical
science which include observation, testability and repeatability.
When pressed for satisfactory answers in this topic of the origin
of life and knowing that humanity does not possess the knowledge,
ingenuity and skill to general life, atheists like Richard Dawkins are
forced to seek refuge in the possibility that advanced intelligent
aliens seeded life on Earth, but then beg the question by claiming
that these aliens must themselves have come about through some
type of Darwinian evolution, thus only pushing the problem one step
back and not answering the question in substance at all. At the end
of the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, Dawkins is
asked by Ben Stein to explain the origin of life. His hypothetical

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 42
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

answer (emphasis added): “...I suppose it’s possible that you might
find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry,
molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of
designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from
elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself
have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately
explicable, process. It couldn’t have just jumped into existence
spontaneously. That’s the point.”54
This reveals that atheists inwardly know that biological life is
designed and that the inference to design is compelling, especially in
light of ongoing advancements in the fields of molecular biology,
systems biology, genetics, biosemiotics and the various in-built, pre-
engineered adaptive mechanisms exhibited by organisms. 55
The significance of this point can not be overlooked because of
the implication. Let us spell it out: All attempts to play with the basic
ingredients of life (amino-acids, lipids, minerals and so on) in
laboratory settings to generate the most rudimentary biological
molecules through the use of “careful selection” and “intelligent
design” have failed and show the impossibility of the task. This only
leaves two possibilities:

54
Stein, B. & Miller, K. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (Premise Media).
2008.
55
The evolutionist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist and professor
at Arizona State University, Paul Davies, writing in New Scientist, said, “One
of the great outstanding scientific mysteries is the origin of life. How did it
happen?...The truth is, nobody has a clue.” New Scientist, 192[2578]:35,
November 18, 2006.
And Richard Dawkins stated in an interview regarding the origin of life,
“Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must
have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the
origin of life. It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.” The
interviewer, Ben Stein asked, “Right. And how did that happen?” Dawkins
replied, “I’ve told you. We don’t know.” Stein then said, “So, you have no
idea how it started?” Dawkins replied, “No. Nor has anybody.” Stein, B. &
Miller, K. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. (Premise Media). 2008.

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 43
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

a) to have faith that the laws of nature can still generate

biological life in the absence of choice with intent or knowledge,
will, power and purpose—after having acknowledged that all human
endeavours to do so with knowledge, intent, power and the use of all
industrial and technical know-how have failed abysmally.
b) to have faith that agency involving attributes of knowledge,
will, power, and wisdom must be behind biological life—with the
empirical proof that human endeavours to do so with knowledge,
intent, power, purpose and the use of all industrial and technical
know-how have failed abysmally.
However, the two faiths are not the same. The first faith—that of
the primitive naturalists and atheists opposes intuition, common-
sense, reason, and even sound conclusions based upon the empirical
findings of the scientific method of inquiry, as per their own failed
experiments. The second faith—that of believers is in agreement
with all that has been mentioned and is thus, warranted.
Further, just as the atheist and naturalist, in his or her faith that
the laws of nature must have created life, does not have observable,
testable, empirical knowledge of how it actually took place, then
likewise, a believer does not have knowledge of how specifically a
creating agent created biological life and the precise nature of the
the agent’s actions. Thus, there are equivalences between the two
positions from one angle and from another, the position of the
believer in a creator is superior, rational and justified.
As such any discussion with any atheist and evolutionist must not
be embarked upon without full, explicit admission—on behalf of the
atheist—of the point just made, that he or she is operating on faith
that is unwarranted. Failure to acknowledge this with evasion or
rejection is proof of arrogance and following whims and desires.

Second: And this is the central part of the scam which we have
alluded to earlier and repeat again due to its importance within the
whole discussion: To cryptically attribute knowledge, will, intent,
purpose and wisdom to nature, to material matter, through
ambiguity, loaded terminology and doublespeak whilst denying it

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 44
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

using clear, unambiguous language according to need and

circumstance. When choice with intent is denied or that knowledge,
will, power and wisdom are necessary attributes for manifestation of
creative power is rejected, the only alternative is to confer these
attributes upon nature. However—as people of sound mind will
reject this and treat it no differently to the doctrine of the primitives
of old among the naturalists—the moderns use the power of
language, cryptology and technical scientific doublespeak to conceal
this religious doctrine. The primitives were simple, they attributed
divine attributes to the elements and worshipped them. The
naturalists of today are sophists, they use sophistry to hide the
reality of what they say and believe. This is apparent in their
extremely clever use of technical language in order to confuse and
deceieve the people.
This can be observed—by way of a good example—through the
computer simulation program of Richard Dawkins which aims to
demonstrate that random mutations and natural selection can work
together via a non-random process—pay attention to that—to generate
order out of disorder.
This is how it is described (emphasis added):
“The weasel program... is a thought experiment and a variety of
computer simulations illustrating it. Their aim is to demonstrate
that the process that drives evolutionary systems—random variation
combined with non-random cumulative selection—is different from
pure chance.”56
The key idea Dawkins tried to illustrate is that moving in a single
step from a random, meaningless sequence of 28 characters to
something meaningful and comprehensible is extremely unlikely.
The statisticall odds against it are extremely hight at around 1040 to
1. But in gradual steps, along with “selection” it is not unlikely. To
put it in practical terms, this is trying to say that to believe a
hurricane taking component parts in a factory and assembling them
into a finished Boeing 747 within a single step is impossible.

56
From the Wikipedia entry for “Weasel Program”.

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 45
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

However, in gradual steps—with “non-random selection”—over very

long time periods it can be shown to be plausible and likely,
especially with the power of “non-random cumulative selection”.
Thus, if a certain number of the characters in the sequence are
randomly substituted in a first step, they can be blindly and
purposelessly selected (chosen), meaning preserved, if their position
in the sequence matches the position in a known, previously chosen,
meaningful sentence, in this case “Methinks it is like a weasel”, a line
from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, which is the intended goal. The process
is repeated wherein one, two or three letters are randomly
substituted by other letters in each step and if there is a match with
the known end-goal the substitution is “selected”, meaning kept and
fixed to be passed on to the next generation. In this gradual, step by
step fashion, arriving at the intended goal is not as statistically
unlikely any more. Dawkins already knew the goal in advance and
kept mutations only if they became closer to that goal.57
Here is the relevant data from the simulation:
Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
There are many technical critiques of this experiment and it is
important not to get distracted by them and miss the most crucial
point which is to understand the religiously-motivated agenda
behind it and the root psychology in operation. Basically, Dawkins
exhibited the same behavioural attributes that he wishes to project
onto nature or natural selection. This is the virulent “agential

57
Keep in mind that according to the evolutionists, nature does not have
any goal, it is the blind watchmaker and does not have any purpose in
mind. All of this is play with words and making fools of people.

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 46
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

thinking” we spoke of previously which plagues the minds of

evolutionary biologists.
Knowing that physico-chemistry and randomnesss alone cannot
account for the sudden or even gradual appearance of biological life,
and knowing that a known end-goal must exist, Dawkins and his co-
religionists conceal intelligence and goal-direction within cryptic
terms such as non-random cumulative selection. In other words,
they hide choice with intent through cryptology, because that is how
they arrived at the sentence “Methinks it is like a weasel”—through
nothing but choice with intent—with an end-goal in mind and the
use of intelligent selection. They brought it in through the back door
and camouflaged it with cryptic terms. Through this, they are trying
to convince their audiences to accept the least absurd of two absurd
claims. The first being spontaneous creation through a sudden gust
of random, blind, undirected forces and the second being gradual
creation over time in small incremental steps by the same forces
acting blindly, without purpose, direction and end-goals. However,
since an end-goal must exist for anything meaningful to be
produced—and they cannot show that an end-goal exists otherwise
their naturalist scam clothed in the garb of science is exposed—they
used cryptic terms to conceal the hidden elements of intelligent
selection, steering, goal direction and teleology which they have
entered through the back door. Thus, they speak of “non-random
cumulative selection”, an encryption of “intelligent or careful
selection” exactly what the computer simulation was programmed
to do.
It is worthy to remind here of the statement of Nita Sahei,
professor and origins-of-life researcher, whom we quoted from
earlier from her presentation at Case Western Reserve University. In
showing her frustration with failed experiments when trying to
coordinate the chemical ingredients that produce life, Nita let it slip
that they “need to use intelligent...”, then she quickly corrected
herself and said, “... not intelligent design”. Seeing she was stuck and
hesitating, another professor in the audience helped her out and
said, “careful selection”. Nita then rephrased her sentence and said

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 47
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

“we need to carefully select... based on our knowledge” which in

substance is no different to saying we need to “intelligently design”.
These are word games that are played and on occasions you will see
them catching themselves out.
The same analogy applies to what they are doing with “the
evolutionary process”. They know that for evolution to work
through the mechanisms they are suggesting, there have to be end-
goals, purposes and targets. In the language they use in their
research, descriptions and analyses—as indicated in the lecture of
Samir Okasha at London’s Royal Society cited earlier—they are
unable to escape “agential thinking” by attributing powers, goals,
purposes, designs to nature and natural selection. Sometimes this is
blatant because it is inescapable, other times it is through cryptic
language and at other times they make express denial.
The writings and statements of all neo-Darwinists inclusive of
scientific reporting and publishing should be scrutinized for the use
of this type of cryptic terminology in the discussion of mechanisms
because it is an integral part of how they construct arguments and
make their conjectural, speculative, belief(s) appear factual. The
erudite Muslim scholar Ibn al-Qayyim exposed the scam over seven
centuries ago and it merits some attention in the next chapter.

Third: Evolutionists make tactical zone changes when arguing for

their religious beliefs. Memorize the following categorisation as it
will prove useful later when we look at how sagacious believers
construct arguments for their religious dogma.
a) The empirical zone: This is where we deal with facts and
empirical observations.
b) The twighlight zone: This is a conceptual area characterized by
being undefined, intermediate, or mysterious. Basically, it is seeking
refuge in ambiguity, the enemy of scientific inquiry which functions
upon specificity and complete absence of ambiguity. In this zone, we
find the use of ambiguous catch-all definitions and mischaracterising
what the theory of evolution actually is.

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 48
 A MUSLIM’S GUIDE TO NATURALISM, EVOLUTION AND ATHEISM

c) The fallacy zone: This is where we are dealing with fallacious

reasoning. This is routine in the construction of arguments using
empirical data wherein the scientific method—[observable, testable,
falsifiable]—and logical reasoning is violated.
In discussions and debates, the evolutionist freely moves between
zones. At times he can be in two or all three zones at the same time.
Herein lies the secret to deciphering the statements and writings of
evolutionist sagacious believers and deconstructing their religiousu
doctrines. Mark these words well.
In practical sessions later in this work, we will grab and restrain
evolutionists who operate within one of the zones and then ground
and pound them with empirical facts and sound reason, not letting
them flee into any other zone, or bob in and out of zones, until we
are done. Scenarios will be provided for training and comprehension
purposes inshāʾAllāh.

@abuiyaad | aboutatheism.net | 49