On God and Evolution

Commenting on Albert Mohler's reaction to an essay in the WSJ about God and evolution, Andrew Sullivan says:

It's telling that both Mohler and Dawkins are both dedicated to the maintenance of a certain brand of doubt-free, doctrinally absolutist, fundamentalist versions of faith. There are other kinds. And fighting for that center is an important task in a world being torn apart by politicized religion.

The problem here is that Sullivan hasn't actually addressed Dawkins' argument. All he has done is to accuse Dawkins of being a fundamentalist. (I don't know what it means for an atheist to have a "doctrinally absolutist, fundamentalist version of faith," since atheists have neither doctrines nor faith, but never mind that.)

Dawkins is as much against religious fundamentalism is as Sullivan (more here from Dawkins), so it's not clear what Sullivan's argument against Dawkins is, since on that matter they are in agreement.

I suspect that Sullivan's actual reason for fulminating against Dawkins was that he had the temerity to suggest that we should just get rid of theistic belief (because it's superfluous). I don't see why that argument should be taken off of the table. If you're going to make an argument against religious fundamentalism, then Dawkins position is simply the logical terminus of the argument. Sullivan doesn't say why his own centrist position is superior. (Except that it's "not atheism" -- ironically the same argument Mohler makes).