It doesn't. But it surely affects Dawkins' state of mind.
I understand your aversion to the statement, but I don't understand how that changes whether or not it explains the evidence.
Well, how well does Darwin's theory explain the evidence? Some of the "evidence" it's desperately looking for simply isn't there in the historical record; i.e., the intermediate forms supposedly pre-existing the Cambrian explosion.
Even Dawkins tacitly admits this, as in the following:
"...[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." — The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, London: W. W. Norton, p. 229.To me, Darwin's theory is like a three-act play that STARTS with Act II. The audience never sees any of the "business" of Act I. Without Act I, Act III makes no sense at all.
Should I further explain this analogy?
I can't go along with injecting information that's irrelevant to the validity of a theory in order to try and influence assesment of the theory. IMHO, that's an exercise in propaganda - attempting to emotionally manipulate what ought to be done objectively - and not how science is "done".
Well, how well does Darwin's theory explain the evidence?
At this point, better than any other theory that I've seen. If you've got a better one, I'm happy to look at it. Historically, this is the way many theories start out, and are refined and developed as more information becomes available.
To me, Darwin's theory is like a three-act play that STARTS with Act II. The audience never sees any of the "business" of Act I. Without Act I, Act III makes no sense at all.
Should I further explain this analogy?
No. I understand your argument, but as I said earlier theories commonly start out this way. You're free to reject it unless and until every necessary piece of evidence is produced to verify every possible aspect of it.
I don't know of any scientific theory that has ever been subjected to that kind of requirement and can't think of a good reason why this one needs to be singled out for special treatment. I can think of reasons, but none of them are good.
For one thing, first and final cause are disallowed a priori. The result we've seen in more than a few debates is a correspondent tripping over his tongue trying to discuss biological systems without using the word "function" or "purpose" since that would suggest first and/or final cause.