I disagree with that author who talked about Dawkins. Dawkins may not have the religious definition of the words he used, and that is the straw man the author set out to knock down, but his science is correct.
Don't like his definition of "faith"? Fine, he used the common one that is apparent to the non-believer from observing believers. Naturally, the believer will disagree and say, "Oh, no, faith is much more complex than that," and then run around saying, "They found the ark, they found the ark!" You can understand why a non-believer will look at this behavior and come to the definition of faith that Dawkins did. None of which has any bearing on Dawkins work in the science of evolution. A speech on a totally unrelated subject does not validate or invalidate his work.
His use of the story of Thomas was quibbled with? Fine, he doesn't know the ins and outs of the Bible as thoroughly as the believer does -- something you would expect. So the author siezes on one phrase he disagrees with and turns it into a diatribe against science.
Morality is better based on Christianity? Nonsense. The author's view of how morality developed leaves out the key development. It isn't just a case of matter developing over time, but of observed and enforced behavior. It absolutely is possible to tell right from wrong without resorting to God's checklist, and humanity figured it out long before there ever was a religion. The author ignores this, and pretends that morality is irrelevant to an evolutionist. That's truly dishonest.
Finally, he thinks he finds a contradiction in Dawkins' view of the awe of science, without thinking it through enough to realize that both statements are true: there is awe in the world and despair. No contradiction at all.
This is what I usually find when people try to "answer" evolutionists. They can't tackle the subject itself without looking bad, so they "attack" their opponent itself. According to this author, Dawkins is a Bible-ignorant, contradictory, confused, immoral person. In other words, we certainly can't trust his viewpoint, huh? Well, this is nonsense, and intellectually dishonest on the part of the author. I hope his other writings contain better information.