I am stating at the outset that I am unafiliated with anything connected to Rex, and do not share his worldview or his dogmatism.
While I don't believe Dawkins offers bunk and cannot technically be disproven, I believe a case can be made for some degree of belief based bias on his part.
I believe bias due to beliefs affects everyone. In the case of the scientific community this human trait frequently demonstrates as what I call "thing-ifying" any observed or hypothesized phenomena.
For instance, I found a definition in Merriam-Webster that describes such a phenomenon this way, "a neutral, massless particle..."
If a phenomenon is both neutral and massless, how can it be "a body"? In other words, the definition of a "particle" as it pertains to physics begins with a description of it as "a body." How can a body, even the most minute body, be both neutral and massless? Someone please explain?
But this "particle" is critical to the formation of matter. It is the "stuff" (thing-ified) that holds quarks together so that they form hadrons.
How much does a five-gallon bucket full of gluons weigh? Nothing. If a particle truly is massless (and the notion is laughable) it has no weight. If it has no weight, it is not a body and therefore defies the basic definition of a particle.
So, how about quarks? How much would a five-gallon bucket full of quarks weigh? Like the number of licks required to reach the center of the Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
"The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe." — Dawkins (from the link provided)
I agree with him. Everything that exists is by its existence proven natural. However, much that is superobservable is believed in by science. And everything that is dreamt of is thing-ified into physical existence by as many properties as can be described. Whether or not "it" can exist within the physical terms we have constructed has no bearing whatsoever on our willingness to make up silly names like "gluon" to call any phenomenon that crosses our path.
This practice of thing-ification is what ultimately makes discovery of physical manifestations of spiritual reality impossible for science to achieve.
In other words, not only are they not looking for spiritual reality—which, if it exists, is no more supernatural than my big toe—whatever they find they label, so they will never identify any phenomenon as a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality because they will always have a label and description that rules out that possibility. While there is apparently no limit of things to find and label (thus the awe), once thing-ified a scientifically labeled phenomenon loses much of its charm of discovery. So the areas that hold the rapt attention and awe of science are in those arenas where there are phenomenon that resist labelling. I submit the scientific communities two-century long obsession with light.