Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book From Nothing to Nature "well written", that is one true word from him ...

Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past.
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of it!
Overlooked in Previous, about Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth
Medieval Matters for Richard Dawkins
Do evolutionists ever make unfalsifiable claims?
Two bishop Richards in dialogue (tongue in cheek)
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book "well written" and that is one true word from him
Assortedretorts : ... on "Science Works" quote c/o Dawkins
... on Side issue to "Science Works"

It is from a video series from a debate held in Oxford between Richard Dawkins and Edgar Andrews, here:

Overall problem with this series, it is badly recorded. It is also less well recorded on Edgar Andrews' microphone than on Dawkins'. I hear Dawkins so much that I even suspect that the videos have been made by people who scrapped the parts where Edgar Andrews talked continuously and only took those where Dawkins did so or when Dawkins and Edgar both spoke. But here are anyway the links, and after each link there is a footnote to my comments on the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f0TPd01fJs (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP06ow2or4k (2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqkTG4PPLgM (3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iguW8OXDM4 (4)

(1) Dawkins: His point of knowing the Roman Empire has been answered by me, basically saying that "records" in the historic sense are eyewitness records preserved, and so totally different from an absense of eyewitness records and a mere reconstruction (as with Proto-Indo-European and not Latin):

http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2012/05/dawkins-made-challenge-on-knowing-past.html

(2) His major point in favour of evolution, genetic similarity, was answered by a rebuttal by Edgar Andrews that there are similarities that are quite unrelated to common descent, like between two boxes.

His point that most genes of chimps and men are held in common is a valid point. It is not genetics, but metaphysics which preclude our supposed descent from something closer to chimps than to us, mentally:

(3) Here they discuss a supposed "orderly progression of species" in the fossile record, which is a bit bypassed by wikipedia. Do use the articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerstatten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fossil_sites

Then look up these articles of mine:

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/11/do-evolutionists-ever-make.html

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2012/12/feedback-to-tas-walker-on-geological.html

His pleading that Darwinism is worthy of an expanding universe, a universe thousands of million years old, a universe of which earth is not the centre, is one I have answered by saying that his "universe we now live in" is not the true one, that the universe is comparatively small (though much huger than earth) and centred on earth:

http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html

(4) It is possible to derive something from something slightly different, which arose from something slightly different, which arose from something slightly different ... so with enough steps, with enough generations, we can derive man from something like a bacteria.

Point answered by the fact that we are not just dealing with loci mutations, that is with mutations of genes on location within a chromosome, but with different numbers of chromosomes.

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

His peroration was unfortunately very emotional. He called Creationism Blasphemy. I do not find that Christians should bow down to every Muslim who calls any Criticism whatsoever to Mohammed and to his supposedly divine revelation Blasphemy, but neither should we accept that Dawkins wants Oxford University to be the Evolutionist variety of Pakistan./HGL

(1, 2, 3, 4) Videos are no longer available (for some reason ...) - but my notes on them were written while they were so. You'll have to take that on faith from me./HGL