Sorting out the confusion of acrimonious debate is not so easy here, but from the perspective of this blog, Dawkins, whoever he is, has done immense harm in perpetrating the paradigm of Darwinism when it could, as S.J.Gould noted over thirty years ago, have adopted a self-critical perspective that could have actually forestalled the worst of the ID movement which took the energy of scientific Darwin critics and made it an intelligent design issue. Something went wrong with science and its communication and we the problem with a figure like Michael Denton. You can critique this man as much as you like, but if you completely anathematize that amount of careful critique of darwinism you confuse the issue of evolution even more than the creationists and warp the understanding of students. In general the influence of Dawkins has been at best deluded and at worst a major force behind this endless promotion of views that people like Denton, with many before him, in the science world, have shown to be bad science. It is puzzling that still in the year 2014 the same frozen debate is going on and on without let up. I can’t figure how someone like Coyne could be so stuck in the past here.
As to integrity, the issue must be raised: the confusion over Climbing Mt. Improbable with a bad computer analogy has been pointed to many times, and it is hard to see how Dawkins could simply repeat the same errors over and over and over, mindful no doubt that someone with his reputation and book sales will continue to reap good profits even with obsolete errors.