It's such a stupid piece, I don't know where to begin. He uses language to make it sound like he making an intelligent argument but really doesn't say very much at all.
The first platform for Dawkins’s case against religion – that evolution theory makes creator gods obsolete – creaks at every joint. Since a full understanding of it requires a broad acquaintance with both physical science (especially quantum physics) and metaphysics and few, possibly including Dawkins (a mere biologist, if not just a zoologist) can claim such broad expertise, it is sufficient to note briefly here how those properly endowed do handle it.
I’m not even sure what he’s saying there. Metaphysics is such a woolly catch all that you can apply many meanings and interpretations to it.[He also trots out the tired phrase that:
Dawkins freely admits science still cannot see how life, much less mind, can have emerged from lifeless matter.
But that leaves his totally evolutionary explanation of the coming to be of the cosmos still looking at a yawning gap in the evidence offered for his theory; requiring, it would seem, a leap of faith to cross it. But that, surely, could not be science; and one cannot but recall all Dawkins has to say about leaps of faith.
So, science, applying assumptions as how life came to be, based on the evidence we have is the same as a religious person saying, ‘we don’t know how life came to be, therefore god did it’. Please!