I’ve already supplied a link in support of that quote.
Some quotes from your link:
"Dawkins's explanation leaves the postulated alien designers unexplained in terms of any original design. This indicates his a priori (or philosophical or worldview) commitment to naturalism as the only explanation for life. He can admit no possible evidence for any original designer. Now who is closed minded?"
"This illustrates that Philip Johnson pointed out near the beginning of the Intelligent Design movement in his work, Darwin on Trial: Darwinism is supported more by an a priori commitment to naturalism than it is by the empirical evidence. If naturalism is true, then something like Darwinism must be true. But if one keeps both design and naturalism on the table, the evidence for design can at least be seriously considered (and should be considered in the same way that evidence for design is detectable in archaeology, SETI, cryptography, forensics, and so on."
"The Darwinists claim that their science leads to their worldview (Darwinism). But, in reality, it is more like the opposite situation. Their naturalistic worldview demands Darwinism (or something very much like it--that is, some design-free explanation for all of life). This kind of philosophical commitment is a brand of fundamentalism: I have made up my mind, don't confuse me with the evidence."
"Richard Lewontin on materialism as absolute: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
Here is your unsupported statement. "He said that if you allow for extraterrestrial design for life on earth, then that designer would have had to have a natural origin. The Hallmark of the ID movement is mking either unsupported statements and calling them facts."
The statement that 'that designer would have to have a natural origin' is unsupported in that it is a belief. There is no scientific evidence to support such a belief. You made the claim that making unsupported statements and calling them fact is a hallmark of the ID movement when you did exactly that in the sentence just prior to you making the claim.
The question is not whether there is a link for Dawkins making such unsupported statements. It is that the unsupported statement is believed without evidence. And this from someone who said, "Science requires evidence to declare something exists."