Opinion of Richard Dawkins (both as a biologist and a philosopher)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is there any good criticism of his scientific research? Just asking from considering his views on everything else.

If you're interested, read Kim Sterelny's Dawkins Vs Gould, which contrasts both SJG and RD's approach to evolutionary biology. The latter views selection (the process that drives evolutionary change) s driven by genes, the former viewed change as driven by organisms. They also disagree on the nature of "microevolution". Tbh it often comes across as merely disputes over how the process of evolution should be framed, but Dawkins has a proudly reductionist view of natural history that is rejected by Gould.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is there any good criticism of his scientific research? Just asking from considering his views on everything else.

If you're interested, read Kim Sterelny's Dawkins Vs Gould, which contrasts both SJG and RD's approach to evolutionary biology. The latter views selection (the process that drives evolutionary change) s driven by genes, the former viewed change as driven by organisms. They also disagree on the nature of "microevolution". Tbh it often comes across as merely disputes over how the process of evolution should be framed, but Dawkins has a proudly reductionist view of natural history that is rejected by Gould.

Gould decisively lost that dispute with Dawkins. No-one in evolutionary biology disputes gene-driven evolution today.

True, I guess the biggest biologist around that disputes it is EO Wilson?

There were also other points of contention between the two that the consensus might be more Gould friendly - I don't think biologists are generally as cynical of the punctuated equilibrium model as Dawkins is - I learnt it as both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are complementary.