In today's dangerous world of sexual authority, YES IT MUST BE kept mutually exclusive !
Why? Who is supposed to educate the public about science besides scientists themselves?
Hahahahaha. Richard Dawkins made no contribution to any active field of science.
You just said science communication and doing scientific work HAD to be kept separate. Then what's your issue with Dawkins not doing scientific work? According to you both HAVE to be kept separate. Nevertheless:
Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1979). Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences
Dawkins, R., & Carlisle, T. R. (1976). Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature
Dawkins, R. (1979). Twelve misunderstandings of kin selection. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie
Dawkins, R. (1978). Replicator selection and the extended phenotype 3. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie
Dawkins, R. (1982). Replicators and vehicles. Current problems in sociobiology
Dawkins, R. (2019). The evolution of evolvability. In Artificial life
(pp. 201-220). Routledge.
Dawkins, R. (1981). In defence of selfish genes. Philosophy
Brockmann, H. J., Grafen, A., & Dawkins, R. (1979). Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp. Journal of Theoretical Biology
Dawkins, R., & Brockmann, H. J. (1980). Do digger wasps commit the Concorde fallacy?. Animal Behaviour
Dawkins, R. (1990). Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism. Parasitology
Brockmann, H. J., & Dawkins, R. (1979). Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life. Behaviour
Smith, J. N., & Dawkins, R. (1971). The hunting behaviour of individual great tits in relation to spatial variations in their food density. Animal Behaviour
Krebs, John R. & Dawkins, Richard (1984). Animal Signals: Mind-Reading and Manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (eds.), Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Blackwell Scientific. pp. 380–402.
Mind you, all these publications have anywhere from a few hundred to two thousand citations, for a combined total of 113464 citations. Since he's jut a "science presenter" with "no real contributions to science" while you're a scholar with wisdom that none of those aforementioned individuals have, how do your citation metrics compare?
Again, you are a nitwit who has been seduced and thinks he is smart and savoy, but you are not.
Actually, I don't care about Richard Dawkins in particular. The fact you assume for no reason that I was some disciple of his (along with repeatedly bringing up irrelevant facts and people like Fauci and the COVID-19 vaccines into debates that have nothing to do whatsoever with them) shows a) how in the dark you are about understanding people despite claiming to be able to do so on a general level b) that you have some sort of agenda against the people who you are keen on attacking.
My preferred critic of Christianity from a historical perspective is Bart Ehrman.
Dawkins merely popularised the already existing and known facts regarding how replicating genes are important force behind evolution. No shit, really?!! LoL. That by itself doesn't make him evil or even a bad guy, its all well and good, but the talk-show masturbation style gave an entire generation the wrong about Science !
- This is incorrect, strict Darwinism has been rejected by some biologists, including the likes of Stephen Jay Gould.
- Since you're claiming he just "popularized" existing facts, who theorized the selfish gene framework then, and mind linking me their publications?
And yes buddyboyo, again and for the 10th time, I read "The Selfish Gene" before you mums let your dads put his pee inside her Lmao.
You could be a Nobel Prize winner for all I care. Arguments stand for themselves regardless of who says them.
AGAIN - I reject the claim that he has any contributions to speak of.
He battled religious cucks as a science talk-show cuck. Thats all.
Then I'm sure you have a response to all those publications.