"Since it's way back on page 1, and since the issue has kinda re-emerged, I'll repost this"
Thanks, layman. I look at it this way: Dawkins may have views which are at odds with those of other scientists, but this doesn't disqualify him as a scientist. There are often heated debates in science and those who end up the "losers" still contributed to the progress of science. Plus today's losers may be vindicated tomorrow, so members of the public need not be too invested in prevailing views.
I came across the view of a scientist which made sense to me. If a scientist is referred as "eminent" in the media, this may be a sign of expertise at publicity. It's also natural that other scientists may feel something along the lines of envy and react accordingly.
So my assessment is Dawkins is a scientist whose views had a significant impact on biology. He is criticized for being too reductionist and holding views which ironically appear to be in conflict with naturalism.
He is an "eminent scientist" in the sense that he is well known.