Hello everyone! This post is the first in what I hope will become a series entitled Questions to Ponder. My hope is to get some dialogue going (via the comments) between like minded persons on apologetic topics, beliefs, and arguments that are widely used or well-known. Believers and non-believers are welcomed to comment!
Celebrity atheist Richard Dawkins is well-known for the following infamous quote (and many others!):
"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." 
So, my question is, "Was Richard Dawkins right when he said that 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist?' Or, in other words, if Darwinism was true beyond reasonable doubt, does atheism logically follow?
I look forward to your thoughts and comments!
Courage and Godspeed,
1. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6.