Your Views on Dawkins?

[Voltron]

I do not claim to be a scientist. I'm just investigating whether or not Dawkin's views hold up logically.

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God. The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

Here is my source:

In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

Clearly a host of considerations clamor for attention here. Concede, for the moment, that unguided Darwinism is more probable than an explanation involving design; does it follow that the former is to be preferred to the latter? There is more to goodness in explanation than the probability of the explanans. And how secure is this alleged inference to the best explanation, as an argument form, or, more likely, maxim? If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?

Plantinga, Alvin (2011-10-26). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (pp. 28-29). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

I understand, I am not looking at the whole premise of the book, rather, I am investigating a claim that he made which appears to be logically invalid.

Once again this: " incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God." was for the evidence that I posted. Not on the whole thesis of the book.

So you are cherry picking and leaving out vital elements regarding his reasons for arriving at his conclusions about the best explanation.
How do you suppose that he got to those assumptions?

That source you sited earlier uses a very incomplete analogy too. This assumes that all you have to go on is the noise you hear when determining the cause at the stadium. We have the ability to research, gather data, make reasonable decisions based on that data. If you followed up and researched what caused the ruckus at the stadium, you have done much more than simply speculate what the likelier cause was and would arrive at a much more satisfying conclusion.