There are several videos on Youtube claiming foul play and faking in the "Dawkins Stumped" video.
What, in fact, do they prove?
Of those I have seen so far - nothing.
Indeed, the makers of the "Dawkins Stumped" video have clearly answered their critics and set out a complete timeline of the interview.
They also answer some representative critics and do so politely and fairly despite the fact that, like so many Dawkins fans, they are rude, aggressive, ranting and immature.
As to the attempts to debunk the original footage, for instance, here's one:
It begins by saying how wonderful Dawkins is and then claims to explain why he appeared to hesitate in the "Dawkins Deluded" video clip.
We wait with bated breath for all to be revealed.
An overlay appears in the left hand corner with someone - unknown, unspecified, unexplained and unidentified - who asks the same question, a little later than the original questioner.
This is supposed to expose a fraud?
In fact, faking that overlay is far easier than faking an interview.
Then, we are told the original video is a fake by "creationists".
They don't say.
At the end they say go to another website and you'll see. Well, I don't know about others but when I tried, Google could not find it. I got a "404-Not Found" error.
So who, then, is the fake?
Note also, that they cut off the last of Dawkins' reply in which he asks for the interviewer to stop recording "so that I can just think".
That bit is cut out in the alleged expose.
In any event, Dawkins STILL cannot answer the question - an elementary one - still pauses, still looks stumped and when he is given time to come back and answer - he STILL can't!
Game, set and match, I think.
Sadly, this does appear to show an amazing dishonesty and fraud on the part of the Dawkins' supporters. They will do anything to defend him, it seems.
The original makers of the "Dawkins stumped" video set out a full timeline on their site at:
Whether one agrees with their creationism or not, they answer the critics fairly and provide a timeline of the interview with Dawkins.
Frankly, it is absurd for Dorky to be titled Professor of the Public Understanding of Science when the reality is that he is little more than a self-appointed publicist for ill-constructed, 3rd rate, atheist fairy tales.
If he knew a bit more science then he might be a bit more interesting. But, as it is, he's just tedious and unoriginal.