Really?!
“The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
. . . Professor Richard Dawkins, Debate/Interview excerpt between Professor Dawkins and Dr Collins, conducted at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30, 2006.
And in his frequent public statements, Professor Dawkins has been conscientious in crediting the Theory of Evolution for his certainty.
To see, one must look.
. . . Professor Richard Dawkins, Debate/Interview excerpt between Professor Dawkins and Dr Collins, conducted at the Time & Life Building in New York City on Sept. 30, 2006.
And in his frequent public statements, Professor Dawkins has been conscientious in crediting the Theory of Evolution for his certainty.
To see, one must look.
From those words, it sounds like Professor Dawkins (whom I've never heard of, nor know anything about) is a devout atheist who uses the fact of the theory of evolution as "proof" of the non-existence of God. In reality, it is not.
In that, he is the exact opposite side of the coin from the literal creationists, in that both sides take the ToE as "proof" that God does not exist. But he is happy to have such "proof" while the literal creationists must grasp at anything to try to invalidate the theory because if they can't discredit it, then they must accept as truth the unpleasant idea that God does not exist.
In reality, the ToE is no more and no less than any other theory, in that it provides an excellent framework within which to design and conduct scientific research, but is useless for trying to ascertain whether or not God exists.
That professor does a huge disservice to science by trying to claim that the ToE is definitive proof that there is no God. Science simply can't be used to answer metaphysical questions.