The Standard Model seems to be the work of many physicists, not just Higgs. Also it is fairly clear I think that you do not know enough to make assessments like "the standard model is the most important theory in all of science". The fact that you would even make such a statement is evidence of your ignorance.
I said "the Standard Model is arguably the most important theory in all of science. In my opinion a theory that describes what the physical universe is composed of is the most important theory in all of science, but that is just my opinion.
As for ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge, my undergraduate and graduate degrees and 30 years of work in a research scientific field would say otherwise.. but continue to attack the poster, it seems those who attack the poster on A&A are given a pass as long as they espouse the standard A&A opinions.
Richard Dawkins is a scientific lightweight compared to Peter Higgs. There is nothing whatsoever that Dawkins has published that made significant scientific progress in his field of study. Yes, he has done an excellent job popularising evolutionary Biology but there is a difference between a pop science writer and a likely Nobel prize winner. Higgs is a likely Nobel prize winner because of his "Higgs Mechanism" discovery, Dawkins is not because there is no such discovery or anything like it in his resume.
If you are looking for an analytical comparison between scientists then the h-index is useful. It ranks the productivity and impact of the published work of scientists, based on the number of papers they have published and how many times they have been cited in other publications. As the below paper by J.E. Hirsch who developed the metric explains (source: National Academy of Sciences (USA), biologists typically score higher than physicists.
Dawkins (from the ISI Web of Knowledge) scored 17. This is extremely low for a biologist. Dawkins simply did not do much original work, and his work has not been cited much. Leading scientists would be in the 60+ range with the top 10 scores in biological sciences ranging from 120 to 191.
I realize atheists love Dawkins, but he truly is not a leading scientist and no amount of jumping up and down and howling at the moon will change that.