Dawkins says...
...that science could never disprove God – "There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove," he said. "You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it."
And in reality thats what it all boils down to. If the church <pick any church> had anything to prove their theories, outside of the doctrine, we could all just move along and get on with a life with a God. The fact that there is far more "black then white" to the theories, simply prolongs the theists agony. Faith my friend...have Faith...it is the only way!
Stagnant in the effect that the church, <once again pick any church you like>, cannot prove anything within the boundaries of its doctrine, which suggests an inability to move forward and embrace science or for that matter anything of this century. (see 6000 year earth Creationists, Adam and Eve, etc etc)
In hockey analogy, I think Dawkins is using the "best defence is a good offence".
Atheist bashing has long been a favorite pasttime of the church....labelling Atheists as evil, unknowing, or simply ignorant. Ignoring scientific knowledge, and generally stopping the advancement of mankind for hundreds of years. People like Dawkins are simply suggesting that its not true...in a loud and clear voice...and I might add with reason.
The Church might be advancing...but by the time it moves into this century it could be too late to save itself.