You write:

I seem to recall several prominent scientists speaking out against Dawkins. Orr, Collins, etc.

Collins is a theist. I'm not sure what Orr is. But come to think of it, where is Ken Miller?

Anyway, I know that several prominent scientists have spoke out against Dawkins, but I am focused on two very specific points. The first one deals with the whether science can address the existence of God. Contrary to what the NCSE has been claiming for a decade, Dawkins says it can (the NCSE has chosen to ignore this development). Second, Dawkins makes a testable claim about people, labeling religious parents as child abusers. Why does the scientific community let him get away with this claim?

I still believe denouncing his work on a tactical level is simply the low-hanging fruit, and the most promising way to convince Dawkins and his ilk to reconsider their diatribes..

But I see little evidence for any promise here. If you read the words of people like Dawkins and Myers, there is the unequivocal "we're not going back into the closet" mindset.

By attacking the tactics you don't have to wade through any of the territory that scientists generally fear to tread. And, more importantly, you are appealing to common goals between Dawkins and the wider evolution community.

But given the extremism of someone like Dawkins, we have to wonder what these "common goals" are.

Also, if Nisbet and Mooney agree with Dawkins pseudo-scientific critique of religion, I stand corrected as to their motives. I do not know if courtnix has any special insight into the matter of what they privately believe.

Well, courtnix (a scientist and fellow science blogger) put the assertion on the table and he does seem well-connected to this group. Google tells us that Mooney graduated college with the full intention of becoming a "professional atheist" (his words) and Nisbet was the PR guy for a skeptics' organization. Furthermore, it's clear they disagree with the tactics of Dawkins and Harris (counter-productive?), but is there any reason to think they disagree with Dawkins' critique?

I seem to recall several prominent scientists speaking out against Dawkins. Orr, Collins, etc. I still believe denouncing his work on a tactical level is simply the low-hanging fruit, and the most promising way to convince Dawkins and his ilk to reconsider their diatribes.. By attacking the tactics you don't have to wade through any of the territory that scientists generally fear to tread. And, more importantly, you are appealing to common goals between Dawkins and the wider evolution community.

Also, if Nisbet and Mooney agree with Dawkins pseudo-scientific critique of religion, I stand corrected as to their motives. I do not know if courtnix has any special insight into the matter of what they privately believe.

You rather cynically believe they "put aside" the validity of Dawkin's argument because it is politically expedient to ignore it. But a more generous reading would be that engaging him would mean "crossing the streams." Just because Dawkins steps over the line doesn't mean you have to cross over and engage him there. You simply emphasize why its important that those boundaries exist and point out how foolish and counterproductive it is for one sphere to try to assert itself over another.

I'd be happy to offer a generous reading, it's just that there is nothing to support it. For example, Nisbet and Mooney do not emphasize why its important those boundaries exist, nor do they defend the boundaries. All they do is point out that Dawkins is a political liability, as "a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues." That's it.
Furthermore, consider what their fellow scienceblogger has to say about them:

Matt and Chris do not say that Dawkins or PZ need to shut up. Nor do they say that the anti-religion fight is useless - they are for it.

Well, well. Assuming this is a valid claim, Nisbet and Mooney actually agree with the anti-religion agenda and the whole argument is about tactics. Or frames. How could they take issue with the validity of Dawkins's arguments if they are closet fans of those arguments?

Or, to put it another way, if religion needs a defense from scientists against Dawkins' "scientific" attack, it would indicate that religion needs the blessing of science. And that would go a long way toward conceding victory to Dawkins.

This argument does not work for two reasons.

1. Thanks to the ID debate, we already know that many critics are willing to speak quite loudly that science cannot be used to determine whether or not God exists. In fact, many have been willing to sign decrees along these lines. Why is it that so many critics have suddenly gone silent about this argument? Same arguments, different movements, thus different reaction.

2. Dawkins makes sociological claims that are pseudoscientific nonsense. The obvious one is his attempt to equate religious parents with child abusers. Is it up to relgion to do science's job for it? I haven't seen many scientists speak out against this bogus, bigoted claim.

You rather cynically believe they "put aside" the validity of Dawkin's argument because it is politically expedient to ignore it. But a more generous reading would be that engaging him would mean "crossing the streams." Just because Dawkins steps over the line doesn't mean you have to cross over and engage him there. You simply emphasize why its important that those boundaries exist and point out how foolish and counterproductive it is for one sphere to try to assert itself over another.

Or, to put it another way, if religion needs a defense from scientists against Dawkins' "scientific" attack, it would indicate that religion needs the blessing of science. And that would go a long way toward conceding victory to Dawkins.

Are you sitting down?

I agree with your post (at least most it).

I have posted a comment on Nisbet's web site.

It might be interesting to see his response.

Regards,
TP

P.S. My comment is up. Here is the link.

Instead of offering valid counter-arguments (like this), Nisbet and Mooney are more concerned about Dawkins as a political liability. In other words, even if Dawkins was correct, they want him to shut up for purely political reasons. I guess that is what framing is all about.

This is quintessential politicking worthy of campaign strategists. It is no longer a matter of advocacy (they agree with Dawkins) but rather a tactical dispute. When a desired outcome (not fueling the anxieties of religious people) assumes a higher priority than the message itself then philosophical advocacy has taken a back seat to political expediency.