This is an interesting topic, I just read an article by Richard Dawkins here. https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/06/the-improbability-of-god/

In this article he is making a false dichotomy between scientific evolution (without God), and a 140 hour (6 day) special creation by God. I am specifying 6 days instead of 7 because the Bible states God rested on the 7th. Here is a quote of his oversimplification.

The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value.

I don't know if he was aware, but the Catholic Church (1.2 billion believers) does not require belief in a 140 hour creation. The book of Genesis more importantly explains why we are here, not how we are here. The why is a much more important question. The Bible is not a science textbook, nor was it meant to be.

In the 1950 encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII confirmed that there is no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and the theory of evolution, provided that Christians believe that God created all things and that the individual soul is a direct creation by God and not the product of purely material forces. -From wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Was Dawkins aware that one of the largest groups of believers did not deny evolution? I don't know, but he should have known.

Is it a reasonable assumption to believe that a God who set a system and laws in place that would unfold into our incredible biological diversity today a "lazy God"? Certainly not. It may not fit into his understanding of God, but Dawkins is certainly capable of error.

Was Dawkins aware that he was pummeling a "straw man" and not really wrestling with the truth? Again, I don't know. I do know that he should have known.