A Classic Error

Picking up on something Mitch said (see comments to last post):
I believe Richard Dawkins has made a classic error. (I can't really say for Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, but it may be the same.)
Dr. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and a very good one from what I'm told. Fascinating stuff, his work. But where I see evolutionary biology as a limited field, he apparently does not. It looks like he has closed his universe around his discipline. What cannot be explained in terms of EB, or learned from it, is out of bounds, even absurd. Empirical evidence is all there is (see discussion of Logical Positivism).
A Dawkins argument re: God -

1. Let's assume for a minute there is no God.
2. I'm okay with that.*
3. Therefore there is no God.

Hmm - maybe we better make sure -

4. Let's assume there IS a God.
5. Oops! That would contradict #1, above.
6. Therefore, there is no God. QED.

I have read some of his stuff, and heard a radio interview with a very friendly interviewer, and honestly, his argument doesn't amount to much more than that. Absence of evidence is taken as evidence of absence. How ironic that I'm referencing Carl Sagan.

Let's use this as an example of a closed-universe philosophy. Anyone can do it, even a Lutheran Pastor. All you have to do is assume your own discipline is the center of all things and all else revolves around you(r knowledge). I've seen it done with politics, education, and of course science and religion.
Trying to avoid this sort of thing . . .

*Everything around me can be explained without reference to a God, and anything that can't is not important or not knowable or will be discovered by science in the future.