This blog entry adds to a whole range of straw man arguments written by journalists and bloggers who clearly haven't read the book.

"Whenever you hear scientists categorically state that something does not exist because we have no evidence for it"

Dawkins did not do that. Dawkins argument is that without evidence you have no reason to think it exists. He says you have to accept the possibility because you can't disprove it and then adds that, in the absence of evidence, we have the same reason to think that god exists as we do the tooth fairy. We cannot disprove the existence of the tooth fairy.

That is not the same as claiming categorically taht god does not exist because there is no evidence.

In the comments you have stated that the article is not about dawkins but scientists in general... but the article says this...

"Of all the people who attempt to (ab)use science in this way, Dawkins stands out above all others."

so sorry, I don't accept that. You've specifically, and incorrectly, accused Dawkins of commiting the fallacy you are referring to generally.

I suspect, that like many others, you have based much of your opinion on what others have said about Dawkins. This kind of article pops up all too often. I've even found specific examples of people critisising Dawkins for not considering certain things that are very well covered in the book.

I'm afraid you're no better than Prof. William Reville with his army of straw man arguments published in the Irish Times.