bohm: Don't get hung up on Cosmology. I'm not. I never mentioned Cosmology per se and I'm not contending that Dawkins is an expert on Cosmology. Perhaps you're referring to my mention of one aspect of Cosmology, the Anthropic Principle, which I only mentioned because Dawkins uses it (as most that propose it) as an ultimate explanation for the derivation of the laws that govern Evolution and Natural Selection.
Q. " dawkins is wrong about the origin of natural laws (as far as i can tell thats your point of critique of dawkins). So what? "
A. Nothing. As long as you and other people realize it and don't think that because he wrote an interesting book ("The God Delusion" is a very interesting book as is "The Blind Watchmaker") that he is now a significant proponent of how Evolution and Natural Selection happened. Did you notice I didn't question whether "it" (Evolution or Natural Selection) happened? I also did not say that Dawkins is wrong on the origin of natural laws. There is no right or wrong about the "origin" of our natural laws because we just don't know why or how they came to be what they are. What I suggested is that if there's a question on how our natural laws work or that they even hold up, it's hasty to make some of the conclusions Dawkins makes. On this thread, the mention of Dawkins has been positive and I just wanted to balance the view by pointing out things that could make us think otherwise about the way life actually happened.
Jeffro: I think you misunderstand if, by my challenging what Dawkins or anyone says, it automatically means I'm for the "magic sky daddy". That's a pretty black-and-white view of things. Is there no room for some other option? Better yet, is there no room for no option? Are we really compelled to make a choice or simply concluded that we just don't know?
" Wilson says: I can live with not knowing for sure as long as I don’t stop seeking good answers or at least asking the right questions. "
Alas, that was not Wilson. That was me speaking in an excerpt from my book. I made no citation of Wilson (well, maybe a sentence fragment) and instead referenced and summarized his objections to Dawkins. That was but one example in my research about Dawkins' ideas. Here's another extract from my book which actually includes a citation in reference to Dawkins:
Carl Coon (an atheist and vice president of the American Humanist Association and author of several books) puts the dismissal of Group Selection, particularly by Dawkins, this way: “It was as though he had informed me that the American Association for the Advancement of Science had repealed the law of gravity.”
So when I find other legitimate writers and scientists object to Dawkins in this manner, that he may be wrong, saying "so what" is like sticking my head into the ground. Yes the kinks and controversies will be worked out. But until then, I prefer to keep an open mind and not accept conclusions that are not warranted. In case anyone missed it, that doesn't mean that an effect, like Natural Selection, is not real. What it means to me is that it's not legitimately justified based on a particular flawed explanation.
A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ?π?θεσις, from Greek ?ποτιθ?ναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose,"  plural hypotheses ) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis , the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and " theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory . A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. 
If you look carefully, I never said that the (Dawkins') "hypothesis" was a limitation. I said that "there are limitations to our theories" (due to the scientific method). Before I get into "scientific theory", notice the highlighted text and realize why what Dawkins proposes is not a scientific hypothesis but an ordinary hypothesis (suggestion) which may not require the scientific burden of proof.
The argument Dawkins lays out in his book proposes lots of reasons for why we have religion and a common delusion, while at the same time explaining how some processes (like memes and Extended Phenotypes) are part of the Natural Selection process or of some process. Unfortunately, they (the ones I mentioned) can't be tested with the scientific method. What we have left are some interesting observations (I've already admitted that about the whole book). My impression has been in this thread that what Dawkins is proposing (his methods) has some sort of legitimacy. My contention has been that while interesting, it only rises to the level curios.
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment ."  Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force. 
Evolution is a work in progress because many aspects of it do not meet the burden of the definition above. But, many do. How do we, as lay individuals, note the difference? By at least questioning --no -- challenging some propositions the same way other scientists do. That's what I've been doing here when Dawkins' assertions seemed so passively accepted. This is exactly what happened with Darwin's other Theory of Pangenesis and Lamarck's Theory of Transmutation. They are completely discredited. Remarkably, we don't criticize the discreditors (other scientists) and say "so what" that Darwin and Lamarck were wrong in those instances.
" This idea may be trashed someday, or it may hold up. But that's how it works. "
I do hope you mean to say that the "trashing" or "hold[ing] up" of the idea is the way things work and not that while the idea remains, that is how the idea works (with the inference that since there's nothing better, we'll just go with it). In fact, I'm sure you meant the former and you are right. But, my particular attitude is that just because an idea is out there and even if it happens to be a particularly exciting one or somewhat advanced, that is not enough reason to accept it until the day comes when it's trashed because a better one came along. We should put the idea in doubt particularly if I have some reason to question it or question aspects of it.
For centuries, we held to Newton's view of the universe and the majority of people came to accept with absolute certainty that we had arrived at a reality about time, space and the laws that govern them. But not everyone accepted everything. Some did question. And the questions became so important and profound that demanded equally profound answers. All of that coalesced in Einstein. But it was not long after that Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg successfully challenged Einstein's ideas about the quantum. Today, notable people are challenging Einstein's Time Relativity equations in order to compensate for the theoretical Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
It's difficult to maintain a position of neutrality or even skepticism and not be pigeonholed into one position or another simply because I pose what to me are legitimate questions. I do think that either I'm not explaining myself correctly or I'm just being misunderstood. That is why I've persisted in this discussion. It's important for all of us to know if we really have the correct information, if we are at least pointing in the right direction, or if we have no business making unsustainable conclusions. At least, it's important for me. Even though it's been a great exercise, I'm ready to stick a fork in this one.