I find myself agreeing with most of the content of your article but disagreeing with the ‘after-taste’. I agree with most of the comment made by Remarkl, especially concerning Miller’s law.

The importance of Dawkins, and he is historically important, is not in the ways that he was wrong but with the battles he chose to fight, the imagination he introduced to different fields and the emphasis he provided to certain themes like his stand against religion. Yes, he could have been more nuanced and his seemingly low opinion of philosophy is regrettable. Still, I like the person, I like what he has brought to the world and I even like the way he introduced it. Take from his legacy what you wish. Expecting him to also be ‘right’ is too much to ask.