The man has been accused by his colleagues of stepping outside the boundaries of science just like his nairaland colleagues.
Trying to always use science for blackmail and intimidation.
Mscheww

PastorAIO:


Most British scientists in a new study dislike Richard Dawkins, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public.

Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion.

they said he criticises religion too much. I basically agree with that but they didn't say anything about evolution being a lie. More of our ancestors DNA was just found in the pacific ocean but it isn't any of the established human species

No source? No numbers indicating (1) what percentage of the scientists actually brought up the criticism and (2) what percentage are religious?

Seun:
No source? No numbers indicating (1) what percentage of the scientists actually brought up the criticism and (2) what percentage are religious?

I'm sorry, I forgot to put the link. It's all in there.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html

Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.

Mathematically, that means just 80% of (48 / 137) = 28% of the scientists interviewed brought up Dawkins and "said they thought Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists". Note that this is not even the same as saying 28% 'dislike' Richard Dawkins. That's an extrapolation. Also note that this tells us nothing about the views of the (137-48)/137 = 65% of the scientists who didn't bring up Richard Dawkins. It's quite possible that the majority of those 65% actually 'love' Richard Dawkins. Haters are more likely to bring up a topic that no one asked about.

Seun:

Mathematically, that means just 80% of (48 / 137) = 28% of the scientists interviewed brought up Dawkins and "said they thought Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists". Note that this is not even the same as saying 28% 'dislike' Richard Dawkins. That's an extrapolation. Also note that this tells us nothing about the views of the (137-48)/137 = 65% of the scientists who didn't bring up Richard Dawkins. It's quite possible that the majority of those 65% actually 'love' Richard Dawkins. Haters are more likely to bring up a topic that no one asked about .

Hmmmm, the bolded sounds familiar.
Like the way atheists bring up God even though they are not asked abi?

By the way, they have spoken. They dont like him. He uses science for the wrong purpose and likes to step out of his boundaries.

felixomor:


Hmmmm, the bolded sounds familiar.
Like the way atheists bring up God even though they are not asked abi?

By the way, they have spoken. They dont like him. He uses science for the wrong purpose and likes to step out of his boundaries.

**** If u had a much deeper logical savvy, u would have been able to come to a conclusion that the minor percentage who claim not to like Dawkins are probably the few religious scientists who are offended by his constant attack on religion and thus ur first comment on this thread would have been a little more measured.
I don't expect u to even understand anything I wrote just now though. I expect u to reply me with one or two illogical nonsense and move on.

NPComplete:


U are one of the smartest guys I ever met on Nairaland. That's if lacking a grasp of complicated thinking processes can be considered smart. If u had a much deeper logical savvy, u would have been able to come to a conclusion that the minor percentage who claim not to like Dawkins are probably the few religious scientists who are offended by his constant attack on religion and thus ur first comment on this thread would have been a little more measured.
I don't expect u to even understand anything I wrote just now though. I expect u to reply me with one or two illogical nonsense and move on.

Hehehe.
Is it not obvious you didnt read the article?
U see urself?

Please shift!

felixomor:


Hehehe.
Is it not obvious you didnt read the article?
U see urself?

Please shift!

And were the scientist that criticized religious or not?
Because if they are then criticism is expected.

NPComplete:


U are one of the smartest guys I ever met on Nairaland. That's if lacking a grasp of complicated thinking processes can be considered smart. If u had a much deeper logical savvy, u would have been able to come to a conclusion that the minor percentage who claim not to like Dawkins are probably the few religious scientists who are offended by his constant attack on religion and thus ur first comment on this thread would have been a little more measured.
I don't expect u to even understand anything I wrote just now though. I expect u to reply me with one or two illogical nonsense and move on.

Chai!!!

see finishing

hopeful1andlord:


Chai!!!

see finishing

lol it's not surprising with thiests like that na.

NPComplete:


U are one of the smartest guys I ever met on Nairaland. That's if lacking a grasp of complicated thinking processes can be considered smart. If u had a much deeper logical savvy, u would have been able to come to a conclusion that the minor percentage who claim not to like Dawkins are probably the few religious scientists who are offended by his constant attack on religion and thus ur first comment on this thread would have been a little more measured.
I don't expect u to even understand anything I wrote just now though. I expect u to reply me with one or two illogical nonsense and move on.

This makes more sense than the emboldened text - the scientists that thought Dawkins misrepresents Science are normal thinking humans who are repulsed by his bigotry and blatant intolerance of people's personal beliefs .They don't have to religious to be vociferous about their dislike for his repugnant behavior .

Now the above is perfectly logical

KingEbukasBlog:


This makes more sense than the emboldened text - the scientists that thought Dawkins misrepresents Science are normal thinking humans who are repulsed by his bigotry and blatant intolerance of people's personal beliefs .They don't have to religious to be vociferous about their dislike for his repugnant behavior .

Now the above is perfectly logical

Ebuka again?
I usually don't like to get into an argument with u because I know u are smart, probably one of the smartest Christians on this section, and u understand opposing arguments but choose to argue anyway and usually pretend not to know the point the other person is making. I will indulge u for today just because of other people who will be misled by this ur comment.
The topic makes a bold assertion: scientists don't like Richard Dawkins. Apart from being a shameless click-bait, what the title assures us is that once we read the article, we should find at least a majority of scientists claiming to dislike Dawkins; it failed on that account. Awfully.
Now on reading further, we find that some minority number of scientists do not approve of Dawkins methods. That doesn't suggest they dislike the man, some would just rather hope he uses another approach. The same way I do not approve of ur deliberate misrepresentation of my arguments here but that doesn't mean I dislike u. If anything admire the logical counterbalance u sometimes provide against certain atheist arguments here.
I actually don't like Dawkins brand of atheism too. It's just too reminiscent of crusading Christians but I am indifferent about the man. Sometimes I feel he is needed to balance religious blindness that precludes human development and at other times I feel he overdoes it. Throughout the article we find even fewer people stating they dislike the man outrightly and at least half of those people are probably very religious.
That's my point

felixomor:

Hehehe. Is it not obvious you didnt read the article? U see urself?
Please shift!

And u just did as the guy said.