Smart? He mostly offers superficial pseudo science, which doesn't hold more profound investigation.
The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details. He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though).
He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really scientific.
You have to be scientific, not only sound so. And, science is not absolute -- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which is simply not scientific, but already his religion...
What do you mean by this? Are you claiming his work in evolutionary biology is pseudo-science? What part of it? Or are you just angry that he doesn't believe in god and isn't afraid to say so?
> The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one
Are you claiming he is a pseudo-scientists or a mediocre scientist?
> To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud
What is he shouting about? In my experiences with his writing and speech he makes clear, persuasive arguments which make specific, disprovable claims.
You have made extremely strong claims about a respected scientist and provided nothing but your much derided shouting to back it up.
:-) Wow. This is hysterical and wildly inaccurate. Dawkins has numerous academic papers. 'The Selfish Gene' (which was praised by W D Hamilton--one the great biologists of our times) is a great introduction to genetics, a wonderful and proper science.
He is making science (and many times his personal opinion, that is: his personal theories) an absolute fact.
It doesn't matter how many real science he's providing: if you take 90% of truth, and mix in 10% of lies, then the result can't be true...
He claims that evolution (a statistically impossible theory) has to be taken as a fact, "forgetting" that one of his colleagues, and many others, already have proven it wrong.
It's not important what I think now, or what you think now, future will show! The current science might be blind -- remember, it's not absolute -- as it already happened many times in history...
Now I am not the biggest Dawkins fan (I think he is abit of a science zealot - which has it's place but is still uncomfortable) but you're being unfair.
He is at least soundly scientific; especially in evolutionary biology.
The difference between a mediocre scientist and a really smart one is (as always) in the details. He sounds smart at first (many people could do the same; only very few are really smart though).
He's the perfect guy to mislead you in any wrong direction, if you simply "eat" all of his "science". To me, he's the typical representation of someone able to shout out loud and successfully, without really saying anything really scientific.
You have to be scientific, not only sound so. And, science is not absolute -- nothing is absolute -- but he puts science in an absolute position, which is simply not scientific, but already his religion...