Conclusion
1 – I find it unbelievable that any sane man should really have to respond to such a statement: “The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself”! It‟s just like complaining from man‟s “natural temptation to attribute the appearance of daylight, to daylight itself”! We have – I hope – written enough in the radical demolition of such anti-rational nonsense. Nothing more needs to be said!

2 – The author keeps revolving over and over again around the very same unreasonable and age-old complaint: “But who created the creator?”, and I believe I have responded to that false question eloquently.

3 – The argument from improbability (or what he calls „the Ultimate 747‟) is a clear demonstration of how the doctrine of Darwinism is founded on inverse rationality, and on a false application of different tools of mathematics and statistics!

4 – I have explicitly demonstrated the magnitude of irrationality and inverse reasoning even at linguistic level that the Doctrine of Darwinism fosters and builds upon!

5 – The sheer corruption in his use of the Anthropic principle in proposing (multiverse) models, thinking that in doing so, the improbability of the singularities at origin of the universe not to mention natural life, would drop! (A clear example of what Darwinian philosophy does to a scientist!)

6 – He ventures into cosmology and physics, even chemistry, trying so desperately to make up some “gap filling” “explanation” that could appeal to the reader to accept in place of the rational imperative of creation! He fails to realize that instead of explaining what has to be a starting point (a singularity) he actually regresses it into another part of another evolutionary chain of some sort; which shows that the best way he can think of to explain “origins” is actually to kick it up in regress!

7 - The conclusion he makes is: there was never any first origin; there was always a universe, or a series of universes, recurring infinitely in the past as
435
into the future! So typical of an atheist indeed! Actually so typical of any materialist philosopher! He simply cannot allow himself to accept the idea of a first transcendent origin to the whole thing; so he has to keep the regress of material causes going back to eternity despite everything that he sees that tells him otherwise! There has always been matter, and matter is all that is there in existence! Make up whatever story you wish to ―explain‖ it, but only make sure that it doesn‘t have a point where there has to come an external un-analogous source beyond it all!

Of course there‟s more than these seven points that the reader will conclude as her reads through, and I suppose he may find himself eager to know more, and will have many questions triggered in his mind; so I ask him to wait until he‟s done reading both volumes, for there‟s much more that I still have to say in volume two. It‟s not only a detailed response to the rest of Dawkins‟ book, as my reader shall see.

In conclusion of this volume, I leave it up to you now, my reader, to judge the kind of literature that atheistic argumentation makes, and to take even deeper insights into the fundamental fallacy of Darwinian philosophy, and I pray that you can see things the way all healthy people do, not the way the Darwinian doctrine does to people! Amen.