I didn’t see the movie. So what you are saying is that this article is lying?
I wouldn’t go as far as saying he’s lying, although that was my initial reaction. He protects himself with the qualification, “seems to be”, so this gives him a lot of latitude.
As I’ve stated in other threads, Stein pressed Dawkins to say whether ID could even be considered at all. Being pressed, Dawkins said well, it could be, but he immediately stipulated that in such a case these designers must have been themselves naturally evolved ( neglecting the case of second generation “designers” ... the point being that he’s not conceding the possibility of a supernatural origin for life. )
In the movie, they pan to Stein smirking at this answer. The idea being seized on is that ID is ID, so how can you allow for some extraterrestrial ID but disallow a supernatural ID? Of course, it’s a very different thing, since under Dawkins’ stipulation, this hypothetical ET ID would be restricted to materialistic methods, and have no recourse to arbitrary fiat.
So then Stein asked him if there would be any way to tell if this was how life originated, and Dawkins said, well, they could have left some sort of signature. This was the only mention in the entire movie of any kind of possible direct evidence for ID!
I certainly didn’t think Dawkins came off poorly at all in this exchange. He was entirely forthcoming, and seemed to be a very good sport about the whole thing. If he has complained, I imagine it would be about the editing, and I’m sure there are things he said that he wishes they would have left in, but if the interview was “chopped up” it was done with some skill, because it all came off pretty naturally, with the possible exception of Stein’s smirking. That honestly didn’t bother me, though. Let him smirk.