Out of all the criticism that I've read, I have yet to find any real answers to the points that Dawkins raises. Most seem to start with some form of peronal attack on how qualified he is to write about the subject - which comes across as being a weak defense at best.
It's usually important to have a basic education in a field before you start offering criticisms in that field. That way you can get an appreciation of what's been discussed by previous great thinkers in the field: which questions have been answered and which are still considered open. I ran across a similar situation in a thread on Slashdot
and was prompted to ask, "Why is it that some people consider ignorance such a virtue when it comes to philosophy?"
I could go on about this at length, but that would be tedious. Instead, how about you summarise one of the points that Dawkins has raised, and I'll address it for you.
Before you do, however, you may care to read my article "Dawkins' Dangerous Idea"
. This provides a criticism of a Dawkins viewpoint which rests outside his area of expertise. I argue that his position is riddled with self-contradictions which he has completely failed to notice, thus demonstrating the difference between "rationalist" and "one skilled in the art of reasoning".