Dawkins seems to believe that to be hired as a scientist, one must believe in the truth of the model one uses. I can't quite understand why he holds this view - at least in my experience, scientists study hypothesis they don't believe in all the time. I've done this (I don't believe in Copenhagen QM at all, and I'm skeptical of Bohmian mechanics). Does this make me a fraud? According to Dawkins, I guess it does.
I don't believe that is the case. As long as you can explain why you don't agree with the models in a rational manner and are open to the possibility that you are wrong, then you are fine. Dawkins appears to be upset with compromising the integrity of a scientific position.
He quoted a scientist claiming that even if all evidence clearly indicated the Earth was very old, he would still not believe it because the Bible says differently. And that same scientist also appears to believe that there is not an insigificant amount of evidence indicating that the Earth is very young. This makes me think Dawkins might be right. If this man already knows the answers he is looking for then he cannot be reasonably impartial.
That type of thing is worlds away from "I am skeptical of this model because [science stuff]". Perhaps Dawkins is holding these positions to an unrealistic high standard, but I don't think he is being as ridiculous as you indicate.
I don't believe that is the case. As long as you can explain why you don't agree with the models in a rational manner and are open to the possibility that you are wrong, then you are fine. Dawkins appears to be upset with compromising the integrity of a scientific position.
He quoted a scientist claiming that even if all evidence clearly indicated the Earth was very old, he would still not believe it because the Bible says differently. And that same scientist also appears to believe that there is not an insigificant amount of evidence indicating that the Earth is very young. This makes me think Dawkins might be right. If this man already knows the answers he is looking for then he cannot be reasonably impartial.
That type of thing is worlds away from "I am skeptical of this model because [science stuff]". Perhaps Dawkins is holding these positions to an unrealistic high standard, but I don't think he is being as ridiculous as you indicate.