Just saw a claim online that Dawkins isn't a recognized scientist, which seemed like a weird claim. This is what I want to know: how much research did Dawkins do over the years? Can you provide some references to his list of researches?

Yes, he has done 'recognised science', if you accept that his main contribution has been to developing and synthesising theory from the research.

The Extended Phenotype (wiki)
List of academic papers (wiki)

...and if you think science communication is a legitimate scientific endeavour.

Yeah. Regardless. Yes. He is something of a privileged man child also but to think of science as pure research and excluding theory is a myopic view of science. My 2c anyway.

To close the loop ( if ever one needed closing) I belive it is perfectly reasonable (understated) , to suppose an intelligence beyond orur understanding evolving unchecked as a viable cause. We, science endevours to understand the Bbang. Hydron Colldier.

'By means of 'good intelligent selection' is a viable option in my understanding.

Such method is tangible, 'by means of good intelligent human selection. some evidence?..

Dawkins lets himself down by playing the unreasonable overzelouse athiest.

That having been said I do accept dawkins as a scientist.

Suppose it takes one to know one.... So what do I know

Paul.

It’s difficult to imagine Dawkins’ relief over your acceptance of his academic credentials.

Paul, exactly what do you mean when you use the word “reasonable”?

The_Metatron wrote:It’s difficult to imagine Dawkins’ relief over your acceptance of his academic credentials.

Paul, exactly what do you mean when you use the word “reasonable”?

In the context of 'unreasonable athiest', at the time, I was thinking about how an agnostic might describe themselves as 'accepting the possibility of God' ; and how the 'atheists for profit' (Dawkins) most often counter by inserting 'leprrechauns and fairies at the bottom of the garden' into the debate.

Ye oldie, sublime to the ridiculous auto-Athiest defense. Then the food fight is on. I'm not up for that.

I accept the possibility that a system of good intelligence exists, is evolving, and may be unchecked. There is no politics in such an assertion.

Partly by upbringing and environment, but mainly by observing mankind. Oh. And a theory.

To shield myself, To remain detached from the affray, I reference 'by means of good intelligence.'

There is a subtle difference you might miss between 'good intelligence' and 'good human selection'. The inference 'by means of good human selection' is tangible and, as such, falls within the realms of reality. Reality is science. [Ps. NS. Human selection = science to there.]. By observation.

Mankind is in the frame. Oh my, dismal...

So I ponder my reality, pause for thought, and weigh things up simply: 'a single uninterrupted chain of 'cause and effect now coupled with

The'mechanism'' that is 'evolution' resulting in all of us being here.

So, for some reason, we all surf and journey.

Simple box-ticking Q&A sessions are good exercise.

What is science for?

What does mankind strive to be?

A man on the street screams, 'I just want mankind to be good.'

Paul.

That’s a lot of gibbering to not answer the simple question I asked you, Paul. What do you mean by “reasonable”?

You’re here telling us Dawkins, for one, is unreasonable and overzealous. What does a reasonable atheist with a normal amount of zeal look like?

murshid wrote:Just saw a claim online that Dawkins isn't a recognized scientist, which seemed like a weird claim.

Maybe he mistook him for Bill Nye?