Strom is an avowedly agnostic child of atheist parents. So why should Dawkins' critical take on religion bother him? Oh, he has plenty of reasons. The post includes great food for thought others should consider before treading into the many "science versus religion" debates that seem to pop up like weeds in popular culture.
(Hat-tip to Freedom Dogs, who also have some interesting words on the matter.)

I saw a poll recently - and scientists are more likely to be atheists/agnostics or deists than the general population - science attracts skeptical people. That's not to say that you have to an atheist or agnostic to be a scientists. I haven't read Dawkins - but if he is saying that science prove his atheistic point of view, he's going too far - science can't answer the question about whether there is or is not a God. You might want to read Ken Miller's book - Finding Darwin's God - which is a good counter to Dawkins.
I think what's ironic with the ID advocates - is the God of the Gaps argument tends to undermine - rather than support faith - because after all, if your belief in God is based on the gap in scientific knowledge - well that means that as the gap is filled, your faith is threatened.
The real story about the Intelligent Design creationists is they want to skip all the research and producing results, publishing the results, and defending the results - and instead just put political pressure on school boards and legislatures to get into the science classroom.