Your Views on Dawkins?

[Aractus]

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?

The problem with his argument is that he approaches it as mutually exclusive. No scientific process necessitates negating the existence of God. We don't see the law of Gravity and say "the law of Gravity holds us onto the Earth and not God". We can still have gravity given to us by physics, in the same way we can have evolution also given to us by physics (by complex chemical processes governed by "laws" or rules that we do not fully understand). "Unguided" evolution does take place, that is observable, but it doesn't necessitate that we don't have a God.