Abbreviated version:

"Richard Dawkins has no sense of what he should be doing. Here he's written a book about science, when he should have written a book about philosophy."

It never ends. Here's an article published in Morgenbladet, a highly regarded Norwegian literary weekly paper, a week ago: "Dawkins - a fundamentalist?"

... and if you can't understand it, consider yourself lucky! It's by one Knut Alfsvåg, "Professor of Systematic Theology", and it's the same nonsense you've seen and heard endless times. I'll just translate the final paragraph:

"As a philosopher and a theoretical scientist, Dawkins is uninteresting; here he's too tendentious, un-nuanced and obstinate to have any relevance. However, as a cultural phenomenon he does demand a certain interest: How does such uninformed criticism of religion achieve such sales figures as Dawkins is dealing with? It's a natural thought that we have here the same appeal of simplification that we find with some those Dawkins criticizes. Worshipping reason without reflection, and criticizing science without nuance — are they not two sides of the same coin?"

Richard, perhaps your next book should be called "I'm a Scientist, Not a Philosopher" — but even then, these people wouldn't get it.