Comment on Science by esreveRYourThinking
He has earned all the required degrees to be considered a scientist. An evolutionary biologist to be exact.
Just because you disagree with his philosophies (or his being an atheist) doesn't mean he's not a scientist.
Just because you disagree with his philosophies (or his being an atheist) doesn't mean he's not a scientist.
He never emphasizes science but propoghdanda.
Prove it.
All you've done is make unfounded assertions.
All you've done is make unfounded assertions.
I don't need to prove it. Just one look at what he preaches and you know he's a jerk.
All you've done is make assertions and then refuse to back them up.
Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Fact.
My evidence for this is that he has the met the requirements:
"A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences."
Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Fact.
My evidence for this is that he has the met the requirements:
"A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences."
Propagandist.
Name-caller.
Provide evidence.
Otherwise I would be right in calling you a troll, since you have no goal besides getting a reaction.
Provide evidence.
Otherwise I would be right in calling you a troll, since you have no goal besides getting a reaction.
While Dr Dawkins has degrees in scientific fields, I don't know of one major contribution he has made in any of them. The point of making any list of singular status in sciences is first to omit those that have contributed little to it.
View all replies
No, it's the truth.