Why doesn’t Dawkins admit the truth instead of offering “scientific facts” without admitting that there is no supporting data? He’s following a long tradition. That’s the way it is and has been with evolution since the very beginning: very little substance but a lot of diagrams and artists’ depictions, even phony fossils, some of which are still presented pictorially in textbooks in spite of having been exposed as fraudulent. Dawkins is just a whole lot more successful in telling this tale than anyone else.