Guess how I know you don't know many scientists. In fact, slightly more than half of us are theists of some sort, mostly Christians, Jews, or Muslims. But even the agnostics like Gould and atheists like Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally.
Absolutely true. For example, Gould considers the issue of a "soul" a purely religious issue, not a scientific one.
Nope. In fact, he admits that he can't be sure that God doesn't exist.
Which, as you learned, is true. About 99.7 percent of people with doctorates in biology accept the fact of evolution, (would you like to know how I know that?) and most of us are theists of some sort.
Actually, I don't say I'm an evolutionist. I'm just a biologist, and of course, that means I'm aware that evolution is an observed fact.
You keep on confusing evolution and religion.
They are different things.
My statement "Dawkins is a materialist and claims the "soul" is a product of DNA."
Your response "Nope. In fact, he admits that he can't be sure that God doesn't exist."
Your response is irrelevant because not being sure about the existence of God is a theological issue, whilst saying the soul is a product of DNA is a biological issue.
Furthermore your claim that Dawkins is not sure that God does not exist is unintelligible. Dawkins is an Atheist.
The core meaning of atheism is that it rejects and denies the existence of a god.
People who are not sure are called Agnostics.
And people who are sure there is a God are called Deists.
But regardless of Dawkins being an Atheist or not, it is totally irrelevant to the question whether he believes the soul is a product of DNA or not.
One thing can be said however. Atheists by necessity must always seek for materialistic explanations.
Your claim that "Dawkins readily agreed that neither soul nor spirit could be made naturally" is a contradiction in terms.
Atheists cannot appeal to the supernatural.