There seems to be some misunderstanding of the concept of "fitness" as it applies to evolutionary biology. Natural selection results in adaptation of organisms to their environments, making them more fitted to those environments. Fitness really has nothing to do with some sort of progress. It is entirely relative to the environment (biotic, abiotic, and, in organisms such as humans, social) of a population. Humans with variation that would reduce fitness to ancestral environments and living conditions (i.e. hunter gatherer lifestyles without technology), can be quite fit in the modern world because the environment in which humans reside is different. It is not that we are no longer subject to natural selection, but that, because of the environmental changes, we are subject to different selection than our ancestors. We are still evolving, and improving in fitness, but we are becoming fitted to the environment of the modern human lifestyle (which of course varies from society to society). Evolution, after all, doesn't really stop. As to assessing fitness, in many studies, the proxy for fitness is reproductive fitness, as those more fit to the environment due to selected heritable variation are more likely to yield offspring that will be over represented in the next generation. Thus, if you want to know who is more fit, biologically speaking, look for who is having the highest rate of viable young who then go on to reproduce successfully. They are the more fit among humans.

Where did you get that Myers has not published in 15 years? Have you looked at his CV?

Sipple, B.A. and P.Z. Myers (2002). The Rohon-Beard cell: formation of the primary sensory system of the zebrafish. Submitted, Anatomy and Embryology.

Myers, P.Z (2002) Haeckel’s Embryos, in Icons of Anti-Evolution, D. Thomas, W. Elsberry, and J. Wilkins, eds. Submitted, NCSE.

Dudkin, E.A., P.Z. Myers, J.A. Ramirez-Latorre, and E.R. Gruberg (1998). Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with a calcium sensitive dye. Neuroscience Letters 258:124-126.

Myers, P.Z, B.A. Sipple, T. Hasaka, and H. Qutub (1998) Automated analysis of spontaneous motor activity in the embryonic zebrafish, Danio rerio. J. Computer Assisted Microscopy 9(3):169-181.

Stachel, Scott E., D.J. Grunwald, and P.Z. Myers. (1993). Lithium perturbation and goosecoid expression identify a dorsal specification pathway in pre-gastrula zebrafish. Development 117(4):1261-1274.

Myers, Paul Z. and M.J. Bastiani. (1993). Cell-cell interactions during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone in the embryonic grasshopper. J. Neurosci. 13(1):115-126.

Myers, Paul Z. and M.J. Bastiani. (1993). Growth cone dynamics during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone. J. Neurosci. 13(1):127-143.

Myers, Paul Z. and M.J. Bastiani. (1991). NeuroVideo: a program for capturing and processing time-lapse video. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 34:27-33.

Metcalfe, Walter K., P.Z. Myers, M. Bass, and C.B. Kimmel. (1990). Primary neurons that express the L2/HNK-1 carbohydrate during early development in the zebrafish. Development 110:491-504.

Myers, Paul Z., J.S. Eisen, and M. Westerfield. (1986). Development and axonal outgrowth of identified motoneurons in the zebrafish. J.Neurosci. 6(8): 2278-2289.

Westerfield, Monte, J.S. Eisen, P.Z. Myers, J.V. McMurray, and C.B. Kimmel. (1986). Early neurogenesis in the zebrafish. Proc. I.U.P.S. 16:210.

Eisen, Judith S., P.Z. Myers, and M. Westerfield. (1986). Pathway selection by growth cones of identified motoneurons in live zebrafish embryos. Nature 320:269-271.

Myers, Paul Z. (1985). Spinal motoneurons of the larval zebrafish. J.Comp.Neurol. 236:555-561.

This list isn't terribly long for a research-oriented scientist, but it is clear that Myers prefers to focus on teaching. There is no dishonor in that.

Regardless of what you think of the volume of his output, he still publishes. Professors who focus on teaching have lower publication output than those who focus on research. This does not negate his status as a "real scientist". Also, conference posters and presentations count as scientific contributions if at legitimate scientific conferences. Finally, second authorships is common for faculty, even for research-focused faculty. Quite often professors oversee graduate students, and are second authors on the publications of those students. While the students do the actual nitty-gritty of research, their advisory faculty members mentor them and guide them in that research. That is really fairly common. The bottom line is that Myers and Dawkins are real scientists who do real science and understand the procedures and structure of scientific inquiry. Mind you, however, that I disagree with Myers in his anti-religiousness. I think it is shrill, disrespectful, and counterproductive. I also think that they illegitimately use science to support religious positions (indeed, science cannot by its very nature speak to the fundamental aspects of religious belief - such as the existence or non-existence of deities - which is not to say that it cannot falsify ancillary religious beliefs such as that of a young Earth). That does not detract from their research or work, however, nor should it.

I also agree that this sort of vehement religious back and forth is not really common in science labs. In the lab I work in, for instance, there either are or have been Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others, all working in perfect harmony. There are religious discussions from time to time that are informal, civil, and quite informative. The practice of science is not hostile to religion (and religion certainly need not be hostile to science).