[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn’t refute The Blind Watchmaker at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. He wrote it. He does, however, refute the watchmaker argument for design. It's the point of his whole book, and he is strikingly successful.

[ QUOTE ]
He simply dismisses it as not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]
He shows with convincing argument that it is not necessary. That's a lot different from "simply dismissing it."

[ QUOTE ]
But, he doesn’t say anything of the origin of life. There is nothing in his methodology that leads one to a conclusion that God won’t be at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Why would he?

The Blind Watchmaker isn't an argument for atheism. It's a refutation of a specific argument for theism.

If you say it must be raining in Cleveland because the Packers just scored a touchdown, I will refute your argument by showing that just because the Packers scored a touchdown doesn't mean that it must be raining in Cleveland. In doing so, however, I would not be arguing that it's not raining in Cleveland. It may be, for all I know. But I've still refuted your reason for thinking that it is.

Similarly, Dawkins persuasively refutes the notion that just because a human eye looks designed, God must exist. Maybe He does, maybe He doesn't. Maybe it's raining in Cleveland. But the watchmaker argument is refuted.