Humans have an intellect, emotions and a will. They employ these attributes to come to conclusions when reasoning; even when regarding scientific theories and facts. Deductive reasoning starts with a general theory and then uses facts to support a specific conclusion. On the contrary inductive logic starts with a specific theory that uses facts and theories to come to a general conclusion.
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins begins with the fundamental conviction (inductive logic: a specific theory) that God does not exist. Indeed he proceeds with the magisterial assurance in his conviction there is no God, so that the reader, not possessing his brilliance or scholarship, is likely to bow and accept “if I knew what he knows, I would probably believe the same thing.” Not necessarily. Without intending to, Dawkins reveals that his commitment is based on bias: his “will” or decision making ability that functions without necessarily having all the facts. It's a decision, a choice: right or wrong.
I believe in this case we can show disbelief originates in the will (simply a choice) that does not have to have a solid and conclusive argument based on science data to come to a conclusion. Some still chose to believe the earth is flat. Then once having taken his stance Dawkins moves to the area of the intellect seeking to justify the decision (inductive logic-reasoning) with agreeable information to support the the conclusion he has already made.
If Dawkins could prove (which he cannot) that evolution is a valid explanation of the origin of life, he would provide a fool proof set of facts and turn a theory into scientific fact. He cannot. He has no basis for denying that, for all he knows, God is behind the creation we see and the Author of it. Rationally he cannot “know” that God does not exist. He needs to concede that. He cannot and can only hope that we don’t notice.
It is difficult to prove a negative such as stating that “there is no gold in China.” Think about it. You would have to check every square inch of caves, streams, jewelry boxes, stores, open every Chinese mouth and check their ring fingers, search every dental office just to name a few things to defend this ridiculous negative statement. How much harder is it to prove that there is no God! Has Mr. Dawkins checked out the whole universe: the visible and invisible? Can he explain how an amoeba can graduate to complex DNA? Or how the genders were designed or human reproduction initially occurred? And what about the second law of thermodynamics?
This is conclusive proof that the whole enterprise of Darwin and many educators is to get away from God so that there is no reason to submit or obey the order He proposes. Does the theory of evolution accomplish anything else besides doing away with acknowledging God? No. Is it rationally possible to prove that God is not behind it? Again, no. Since scientific proof deals with the visible and measurable it is not rational to concluded the existence of an invisible God. We must conclude Dawkins' decision originates from his will: a very simple decision: "I do not believe there is a God."
Here is a scientific exercise for those who believe in evolution, that nothing created everything, chaos created order and that the big bang produced the DNA structure we find in all life: BLOW SOMETHING UP and see how many times you have to, to have CREATED SOMETHING. We venture to say you will decide (use your will) to question evolution as a scientific fact and realize accepting the theory of evolution as a fact is a choice.