Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism.The only thing he gets right.
It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer. Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism"—the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.Wrong! Agnosticism isn't "radical skepticism" (that would be post modernism). Atheism doesn't provide "certainties", Atheism is just the lack of a belief in a god or gods. Atheism isn't a single belief system, it is a spectrum of belief ranging from agnostic atheism to strong atheism.
Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.Only to the ignorant fence sitter post modernists like him.
the certainty that they [atheists] can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. [...] Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.Atheism isn't science, atheism isn't based on science, atheism is simply the lack of a belief. You can be an atheist and think that science is utter bullshit and their are those that do.
Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing.Why would there be nothing rather than something? Neither questions make any sense! Thats like asking "what if purple was blue?"