Richard Dawkins is a militant atheist who believes that there is only an "appearance" of "design for purpose" in the study of living things. He appears to be mentally disturbed in the sense that he cannot trust the apparent-ness of his own physical senses and sees only "illusions" and "appearances".
>>Dawkins has a clearly defined cultural and political agenda to make theism "socially unacceptable."
He has been heavily critiqued by atheists and agnostics alike, described as an "amateur" and an "absolute disaster" in the fight against theism and accused with "knee-jerk atheism." Dawkins' explanation of the universe (and life therein) ultimately reduces down to an infinite regress of Darwinian-like processes that result in universes and life forms.
To explain life he needs some kind of intelligent being since he (and no other atheist) has (or ever will) be able to explain the emergence of self-replicating DNA through purely "Darwinian processes" (that's the only possible explanation that naturalism would allow). Dawkins is stuck in the primeval soup and whenever he pulls himself out of it, he can't trust his own senses and suffers illusions. From here he meets his "blind watchmaker" and starts his journey up "mount improbable."
>>This is the sum of his knowledge. He is not honest enough to admit that prior assertion of naturalism is the basis of these beliefs. Dawkins is a staunch promoter of the "modern synthesis", the claim that all diversity in life is explained through natural selection acting on random mutations.
This is now known to be false due to an increased understanding of how much more complex the DNA-gene-cell system actually is. Effectively, neo-Darwinism (as an all-explanatory mechanism) is dead and buried. This puts Dawkins (and all his previous writings) in an awkward position. That's precisely why he has been described as an "amateur" and "absolute disaster."