I guess we would be in agreement that just because there are problems with a theory that doesn’t invalidate the entire theory. So, given some aspects important to Evolution (the fossil record, the enormous periods of time, mutations, etc), it’s important to explore the aspects of what we call Evolution, but in particular, Natural Selection. My problem with Dawkins is not in the area of Evolution but in the way he attempts to interpret Natural Selection and the way that clashes with other scientists. Darwin did it empirically (and cleverly so). Today we use genetics to confirm the aggregation and survival of traits in species.
Dawkins rejection of Group Selection in favor for his own proposals pits him against individuals like David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober. Dawkins refers to his hero Darwin as being “schizophrenic” about the idea (even though the term was not used in Darwin’s day) by Darwin’s promotion of inheritance and the distribution of traits over a population. What Wilson and Sober contend is that it’s possible to have both. An article by Wilson titled Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion) takes Dawkins to task for not dealing with the evolutionary aspects of religion as is practiced by an increasing number of scientists and for Dawkins’ alternative theory of Extended Phenotype.
The more obvious problem is that, from what I’ve read by Dawkins, there is little Evolutionary Biology in his works. What I see largely is an attempt at unifying some of the sciences with his version or suggestions of processes that could explain the outcome. For example, he proposes the “moth flying into the candle” as an example of misguided and suicidal use of an instinct, just like religion. At the same time, he suggests that the misfiring of different brain modules (the trusting module, the coalition forming module, the discriminating module, etc) that normally work cooperatively may be responsible for the irrationality of religion. So, which is it? Some, all of the above? Perhaps yes, all of them. The problem is that, while it may be a nice suggestion, it isn’t fact for several reasons: 1) we can infer that there are modules in the brain but there is not definitive experiment that can clearly identify them, map them and show the relationship to one another; 2) In the case of the Moth, we can strongly infer that it has a navigation system and say that its misuse is responsible for guiding it to a candle or bug zapper. However, that mechanism remains elusive. Bottom line is that Dawkins can suggest all day long, but not come close to verifiable theory. Remember, he is essentially a botanist.
Along with other fervent proponents of atheism, Dawkins promotes things like Peter Boghossian’s “A Manual for Creating Atheists”. That is more indicative of an aim to sway for one ideology but not by presenting scientific papers or peer reviewed works. In my opinion, the evidence should speak for itself rather than necessitating a how-to manual for atheism. But wait, there’s more! If you go to his website (http://store.richarddawkins.net) you will find every sort of paraphernalia, from jewelry to T-shirts to bumper stickers promoting the A-line. The marketing is worthy of the Kardashians. And let’s not forget that the site asks you to add a monthly donation to the cause. All of that has the same trappings as an Evangelical pitch on TV. I just don’t see most serious scientists doing that. Their work speaks for itself. So, I don’t oppose or criticize Dawkins’ defense of scientific facts. I question some of his proposals as fact and have the argument to support that from several just-as-worthy scientists. If I’m disingenuous about that you can count a lot of other people in that group, including yourself for not seeing both sides of the issue.