I don't think they're at all unsubstantiated, and I think his work on genetics and evolution is great. However, for a biologist, he makes a woeful philosopher. Here's a excellent critique (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/jan/11/a-mission-to-convert/) of The God Delusion that every pro-Dawkins should read which I believe answers all of the claims you feel are unsubstantiated without me having to write you an essay.
That's true, but keep in mind the author of the article is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist. That's why I turn to him as a responder to Dawkins.
no subject
no subject
"Scientists’ interest in religion seems to come in waves"
Evolutionary biology is one of those fields that the religious proactively attack and undermine. The tone of the first sentence seems to ignore this.
no subject