Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't have have to meet an butthole to know that he is an butthole. His reputation and stink precede him.

Thanks. Your opinion is duly noted.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think he's more too interested in religion than in his science, but he is an evolutionary biologist. A lot of evolutionary biologists don't give two ****s about religion, just like to study science... unlike Dawkins.

It doesn't really make him a bad scientist though.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Thanks. I just got threw reading it. What's wrong with it?

You mean besides the scapegoating of religion?

 

[Willamena]

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

He's a good enough scientist.

He gets paid.

 

[Road Warrior]

Maybe what's in the article was seen as OK...but the Times decided upon the title to use. It would be their prerogative to use whatever title they see fit.

Are you seriously suggesting that just because the Times has the prerogative to change the title that they did? If so, what was the original title you are claiming Dawkins wanted to use?

Regardless, even if the Times did change the title, and there is no proof presented here that they did, Dawkins could have changed it back when he posted it on his website. He didn't. Why?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think he's more too interested in religion than in his science, but he is an evolutionary biologist. A lot of evolutionary biologists don't give two ****s about religion, just like to study science... unlike Dawkins.

It doesn't really make him a bad scientist though.

But just doing science and being an educator wouldn't give you super-stardom. Dawkins wants to be a superstar. Unfortunately some people have made him one.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you seriously suggesting that just because the Times has the prerogative to change the title that they did? If so, what was the original title you are claiming Dawkins wanted to use?

And you have the propensity to mis-quote and misrepresent others arguments. I DID NOT say they "changed" the title. I said it was their prerogative to use whatever title they saw fit to use.

Regardless, even if the Times did change the title, and there is no proof presented here that they did, Dawkins could have changed it back when he posted it on his website. He didn't. Why?

 

[Road Warrior]

I think he's more too interested in religion than in his science, but he is an evolutionary biologist. A lot of evolutionary biologists don't give two ****s about religion, just like to study science... unlike Dawkins.

It doesn't really make him a bad scientist though.

Agreed. As previously mentioned, by his position as a professor, he's certainly at least a competent scientist. Also agreed most evolutionary biologists care less about religion than Dawkins, but I suspect most evolutionary biologists aren't making millions off selling anti-religion/anti-spiritual books and lecture circuits.

 

[Tristesse]

If he didn't why is this piece of crap on his website?


The End of Religion - Jeff Schweitzer - RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net

There's a difference between having a goal of freeing the world from religion, and exterminating people because they are religious. If you're going to make a comparison to hitler, then you need to show what steps he's taking to kill people because of their religion. Otherwise, the comparison is unjustified.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But just doing science and being an educator wouldn't give you super-stardom.-------Unfortunately some people have made him

True. This has happen to a lot of people throughout history.

Dawkins wants to be a superstar. one.

How do you figure this? I mean..you've admitted never meeting him so what evidence can you share?

 

[Road Warrior]

I DID NOT say they "changed" the title. I said it was their prerogative to use whatever title they saw fit to use.

If they didn't change the title, then what are you saying? I know you are desperately trying to prop up the sanctity of Dawkins, but do you or don't you hold Dawkins accountable for what he writes and/or posts on his own website?

 

[Tristesse]

I don't have have to meet an butthole to know that he is an butthole. His reputation and stink precede him.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a butthole, that must make me a huge anus.

 

[Koldo]

You mean besides the scapegoating of religion?

You posted the wrong link.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Otherwise, the comparison is unjustified.

LIke Hitler, Dawkins is a narcissistic jerk. The comparison is justified.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Anyone who disagrees with you is a butthole

Now you're getting the picture.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Also agreed most evolutionary biologists care less about religion than Dawkins, but I suspect most evolutionary biologists aren't making millions off selling anti-religion/anti-spiritual books and lecture circuits.

Should he be precluded from making money from his books?

 

[Road Warrior]

But just doing science and being an educator wouldn't give you super-stardom. Dawkins wants to be a superstar. Unfortunately some people have made him one.

Agreed 100%. Dawkins, like Limbaugh, Myers, Robertson, Phelps and other notorious personalities, does love the limelight. Many of his lectures/speeches, especially his later ones, are often laced with provocative soundbites. He must love the attention because if he didn't, he wouldn't be so happy to seek it.

 

[Road Warrior]

Should he be precluded from making money from his books?

Of course not, but also let's not raise him to sainthood because he's "doing it for science".

Do you think Phelps, Limbaugh, Santorum, Palin and the like should be precluded from making money off their actions?

 

[Tristesse]

LIke Hitler, Dawkins is a narcissistic jerk. The comparison is justified.

Wow. So, anyone who is narcissistic gets the hitler comparison. Thats a lot of people.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Agreed 100%. Dawkins, like Limbaugh, Myers, Robertson, Phelps and other notorious personalities, does love the limelight. Many of his lectures/speeches, especially his later ones, are often laced with provocative soundbites. He must love the attention because if he didn't, he wouldn't be so happy to seek it.

Exactly, he is like an atheist version of Ann Coulter except she atleast has a set of huevos on her.