Most British scientists feel Richard Dawkins misrepresents science
news.rice.edu
news.rice.edu
Politically influencing people is not scientific presentation. There is tension between representing facts and effect. If Dawkins wants to have maximum political effect, he must optimize his fact/demagoque ratio for maximum impact. It's probably enough for Dawkins to be just little more accurate and convincing on his critique than opposition to turn the minds of people and win arguments.
I have always understood that when Dawkins talks about religion, he is not representing scientific approach. It's not even his field of research. It's unfortunate if he is conveying the false impression of solid science. He uses valid scientific arguments, but his writings as a whole are not coherent scientific argument against religion.
It's also unclear if they have a problem with the man's scientific work (he is/was an evolutionary biologist first) or is hardline stance against religion.
Nothing to see here, just click bait at work.