Yes. See
http://www.alternativescience.com/richard_dawkins.htm
Excerpt:
"When he wrote The Blind Watchmaker in the 1980s, Darwinism appeared to be securely buttressed by mountains of detailed natural observations that supported its main contentions: observations such as the divergence of Galapagos Finches, industrial melanism in moths, and vestigial organs in the human body. With all this evidence, Darwinists could feel confident that they were on sure ground in general, even if matters of detail were not yet fully worked out. But while he was tirelessly recycling arguments from the anthropic principle, Dawkins failed to notice that this ‘evidence’ was melting away around him, like snow on a spring morning, thanks to better observation and clearer thinking.
"Through the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant, for example, we now know that there are not 13 divergent species of finch on the Galapagos islands but a single species with many varieties – just like the many varieties of dog. We know, too, that ‘industrial melanism’ has no relevant connection to evolution or natural selection but merely to shifting balances of population. And we know that organs previously thought to be ‘vestigial’ do in fact have important functions of which we were simply ignorant. Dozens of similar examples can be given. We now know also that, far from being ‘a mechanism for generating improbability’, natural selection is a tautology lacking any scientific content.
"Dawkins has failed to notice that this receding tide of fact has left him marooned alone atop Mount Improbable and that what was once a useful tool of explanation for a complex web of facts is now no more than empty sloganising."
