Dawkins was talking about natural selection in the context of the products of evolution,
Perhaps he was but you used it (with an appeal for divine intervention) to refute something I had said about evolution not about natural selection.

hence the complexity, diversity and beauty. That's why he said that. I have my own concept of beauty, thanks, and I'm not scared of using the word. I'm a human being, not Mr Spock. Nothing is as simple as you think.
Your concept of beauty is entirely irrelevant to the nature and mechanisms of evolution and/or natural selection.

Natural selection is not about "survival." Me grabbing a cheese sandwich is about survival. It's about differential survival.
OK so maybe "survival" was being a bit sloppy with the language but if we're getting into a game of "I can be more pedantic than you", it isn't about differential survival either; it's about differential reproductive success.

And I didn't mention "Darwin's finches." I've got more sense, believe it or not.
Well, no, you wouldn't want to mention anything that undermined your argument. If we're going to get really pedantic, I didn't mention "Darwin's finches" either. I mentioned the Galapagos finches. So did Darwin. They played a significant role in setting him off on his life's work.

So I see you agree that calling natural selection a driving force isn't a good idea after all.
That doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to anything I said. You made it up. You must be pretty desperate to resort to that sort of crap. What I did do was quote, without comment, something said by Dawkins. If you don't like it, take it up with him. I'm sure he will be delighted to discuss it with you.

He may not have explained the origin of species but he discussed it in the context of evolution by natural selection.
But you said "It is about differential survival within species." not about species. Was Darwin wasting his time?

Didn't really expect to get this bogged down in this stuff. I was hoping to move on to all that nonsense about Mount Everest.