All religion is objective. Personal religious experience is subjective. I can demonstrate objectively the position that the scripture I hold to be authoritative states that God created man. I can also demonstrate objectively the impact that faith has had on my life. I can demonstrate objectively the existence of God by citing and accepting the authority of scriptural teaching on the question. Millions of people accept scripture as an authoritative source of information. About the only thing I can't do is force you to accept the bible as an authoritative source of information.
I don't think people like Dawkins have any business trying to pass their personal theology off as science, and I don't think it's reasonable to say the because he tries to, everyone else should get to do it too.
I haven't read Dawkins book(s?) so I can't really comment on what he is or isn't trying to do. But it did bring up a thought. Why can't science accept religious theories on subject matter? Psychology is all subjective and there are scientists who study that. America has built an entire funding structure around psychological issues. Our court systems recognize psychological issues. Why doesn't science recognize religious thought as valid, or at least as a valid alternative, on evolutionary issues?
If religion is objective, why is there so much disagreement over theology? There should be very little if any disagreement on anything that is objetively verifiable.