This is a very inaccurate and well poisoning characterization.  I am biologist with a strong background in philosophy, mainly focused on ethics but of course broadly on metaphysics, epistemology and political philosophy as well. At this point in my life I've gone back to school specifically to get a degree in philosophy and no longer even work as a scientist, so for you to cast aspersions of scientism is wholly unfounded. 

I don't think Dawkins should be called a philosopher for two reasons: 1. He is not referred to as such in philosophical publications, at least not enough that it is justifiable to call him a philosopher outright per WP:V, and 2. He does not work within the traditions of any established academic disciplines of philosophy.  That is, he does not attempt to deconstruct language so as to understand and analyze its meaning and to subsequently determine - through rigorous logic - the truth or falsity of propositions, as he would if he practiced analytical philosophy.  Nor does he fit into the traditions - however broad - of continental philosophy.  Granted, he does write about subjects that are within the pursue of philosophy, but he does not do so in a philosophical style.  Now, I'll fully admit that the there is a sort of Demarcation problem here, and so my second point should only be considered an aside to the first point. On my first point, I'd be happy to include it in the article if Dawkins was characterized as a philosopher by a more than a couple mainstream, philosophical journals or by a substantial number of mainstream, academically practicing philosophers.