... and am glad to have found it online: Roger Scruton's Dawkins is wrong about God.
Scruton actually is a philosopher. Dawkins, a zoologist, practices philosophy without a license. Which is why so much of what he presents as logic is actually rhetoric. Here Scruton takes apart one of Dawkins's arguments by analogy. Like Daniel Dennett, Dawkins is fond of arguing by analogy, even though it is the second weakest form of argument, after the argument from authority -- which really isn't an argument at all.
Scruton, however, does know how to reason, and also how to write:
...the truth of a religion lies less in what is revealed in its doctrines than in what is concealed in its mysteries. Religions do not reveal their meaning directly because they cannot do so; their meaning has to be earned by worship and prayer, and by a life of quiet obedience. Nevertheless truths that are hidden are still truths; and maybe we can be guided by them only if they are hidden, just as we are guided by the sun only if we do not look at it.
The question I would like to put to both Dawkins and Dennett is this:
If Almighty Evolution has shaped us to believe in God, by what right do the likes of Dennett and Dawkins challenge Her designs?
Update: I have revised this post to indicate that Richard Dawkins is a zoologist, not an entomologist.