Only a creationist would not want to understand that the video was altered in any way. Only a creationist would fool himself that a hesitation signified the defeat of their arch enemy, the evolutionary truth crusader. The actual question to which Dawkins responded was asked by a male who was edited out, and not by the female whose voice was edited in to appear earlier in the tape.
The question deliberately appeared quite simple and there are an enormous number of concrete examples—as many, and more, as there are species. The individuals of most species exhibit some variation within the genome. The question was so worded as to imply that the foundations of biological evolution are in doubt. Speciation requires considerable accumulated genetic change. Detectable speciation is that which has already occurred in the past. Biological complexity, whether creationists accept the reality or not, comprises evidence of increase in biological 'information'.
This was a ridiculous question to ask of an evolutionary biologist, and as Dawkins explains of the situation, so irritated Dawkins that he was tempted to immediately terminate the interview and insist that the Australian creationist team leave his house.
This stupid question could have been posed because creationists are so science-ignorant as not to know that the question was ridiculous. However, the deliberate alteration of the video footage (dubbing a different interviewer into the footage) indicates that the actual question was posed in a creationist attempt to catch Dawkins out.
Dawkins' response was completely acceptable in that it accurately addresses the contained creationist misconception of evolutionary biology. Only a science-ignorant person would be so unaware that Dawkins' response was indeed accurate and then to post Dawkins' good answer on a creationist website. No worry to the creationist-poster, the audience knows no science either. Creationist hype-spinners know that emotionally-gratifying deceptions are far more important than understanding to Biblical literalists. Many of these people seem to be morally deficient in that they care only for appearances and will employ deliberate deceit to manipulate situations.
What they fail to comprehend is that even had their question stumped Richard Dawkins, any hesitation on the part of one evolutionary biologist would not be equivalent to demonstrating their hoped-for error in a competing explanation. Even if Darwin was incorrect about natural selection (he wasn't), this would not demonstrate that creationism had any validity. But to recognize that would require logic and intellectual honesty–and no brain-washed individual could simultaneously be a creationist and possess these qualities.
Sites Creationist Deception Exposed, the Skeptic, Vol 18 No 3, by Barry Williams
atheism, creationism, Richard Dawkins