Simply this: Dawkins is taking the laws of physics to be immutable and assumes they are as they must be. In fact, we have inferred the laws of physics by watching and measuring the operations we see occurring around us. We first infer such 'laws' as theorems, suggesting that they are probably true. As evidence continues to mount, we then harden our opinion about them all say thay always operate and are thus 'laws'.
So, let's stipulate that physical laws really are fundamental are really do operate the same way everywhere.
Now, what authority do we have to state that the physical laws we have inferred to exist are the only possible set of physical laws that could be. It seems to me that we can't eliminate such a possibility, just that only one set of physical laws appears to operate. That's not the same thing but is very much what Dr. Dawkins does not want to talk about. There is no illusion about intelligent design, it amounts to higher intellectualized trash talk. It certainly reassures those who don't bother to think these things through and confirms their lack of intellectual inquiry, but it does not contribute to the discussion, save to call those who disagree with his opinion about the source of physical law delusional.
I find his own position to be short-sighted and I consider him intelligent enough to have to come up with what source he believes physical laws have, rather than to simply pass in silence over the whole question.
I'm afraid I don't see Dawkins asserting (even implicitly) the immutability of physical laws as we know them. Nor do I think he saw it as part of his job in this essay to address the questions of the origin of physical laws or whether the physical laws we experience could be different. Why would you think he should have done that in this particular essay devoted to introducing readers to some elementary facts about Darwinism and evolution, and also to referring readers to other articles in the magazine?
I don't know who gave you the authority. But, scientists do not have that authority and do not make such ludicrous presumptions.
Case in point: This one was recently posted here at FR, but I've not got the time right now to search it out. A physicist at Harvard proposes that gravity may leak from a fifth dimension into the known four dimensions. Such a phenomenon, if verified, would radically alter our understanding of the "physical laws."
There are many other examples, some related to Einstein's theories on gravity, but the point is made.
Dawkins is the illusionist. Remember all his computer simulations? He used many unrealistic assumptions that favor evolution. His simulations assumed away everything that could prevent evolution.
They did not allow extinction, which normally would terminate all further evolution
They did not allow error catastrophe, which normally would cause a degeneration away from any target sequence
They did not allow canyons and hills in the fitness terrain (which BTW is never defined) which normally would prevent evolution
In short, they assume naive natural selection - that evolution is upward, ever upward.
So having artificially disallowed all possible failure modes, it is not surprising that the evolutions simulations worked.
Dawkins' readers got the impression he casually threw the computer simulation together and speedy evolution just happened automatically.
So Dawkins, in his computer simulation aids the ILLUSION that evolution is simple in concept, inevitable, and fast.
One could go on and on and on about the ab surdity of this THEORY, but the cultists refuse to leave the plantation.