How "rationalism" fosters bad science

Bloggers like PZ Myers and Larry Moran have a high esteem for the "rationalism vs supersition" crusade of Richard Dawkins. Beyond the issue of evolution vs creation, they all aim openly for a world with no religion.

Interestingly, although Myers and Moran are no longer practicing scientists, these educators have seen enough biology to know they disagree with much of Dawkins-inspired crap, such as facile genetics and adaptationism. That is, both Moran and Myers reject schools of thought where Dawkins is quite popular (such as Pinker's ultradarwinian "evolutionary" psychology).
Naturally enough, when they post on topics such as human intelligence, they are flooded by commenters that adhere to Pinker and that seem quite profoundly convinced indeed that Myers and Moran have flunked: To these commenters, intelligence is highly innate and selected for, and only adaptationist explanations are truly evolutionary. Who said there was no link between scientism and fascism? Most of these poeple of course share the idea that there should be no religion.

Now think about this: Isn't it funny, to say that you use reason and evidence, that science must be the guide... yet SCIENTIFICALLY, Myers and Moran simply cannot agree with dawkins on BASIC aspects of how evolution works. I find that a major oxymoron. Oh yes, we all love science very much, it delivers monolithical truths.. then how come as soon as we discuss some actual science, we cannot agree?

The answer is actually quite simple: The understanding of evolution according to Dawkins and evolutionary psychology is incorrect. But Dawkins has COMPROMISED his reason and his "rationalism" with his evolutionary views. He cannot backpedal on one without logically bringing the other into question. He's stuck!!!

If dawkins says he uses "reason and evidence", yet simply cannot figure evolution right (his own specialty!) then what can we say of his views about eliminating religion, or making experiments on Saddam? Are these views the "rational" views?

Before you pontify outside your field first be sure you have some good footing within your own field.

Dr. Sanders